Dr. Stenger and the Folly of Free-Thinking
Published at The American Catholic
Are we to believe the New Atheist free-thinkers see themselves as reasonable as rocks?
I was hesitant to write this because I don’t don’t like picking battles with atheists. At first I didn’t see how anyone would take this idea about free will and our judicial system seriously, but it seems some people are. So I offer the following with the hope that if more people know about this discussion, more people can see it for the nonsense that it is.
Victor Stenger, Ph.D. particle physicist and best-selling author of God and the Folly of Faith has written an essay at Huffington Post “Free Will is an Illusion“ and it took an unexpected turn. Certainly, the atheistic consideration of free will is nothing new, but Dr. Stenger also makes a connection between free will, or the lack thereof, and our judicial system in the United States. This position has disturbing societal implications.
Keep in mind, this is the man who popularized the phrase: “Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.” He has also published such titles as God: The Failed Hypothesis and The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason. Victor Stenger has made it known that he thinks science can prove there is no god, and that he considers religion dangerous to society.
In this Huffington Post essay he references a book by another physicist, Leonard Mlodinow, who says that the unconscious plays a dominant role in human behavior. As Dr. Stenger puts it, “before we become aware of making a decision, our brains have already laid the groundwork for it.” He goes on to say (read carefully), “This recognition challenges fundamental assumptions about free will and the associated religious teachings about sin and redemption, as well as our judicial concepts of responsibility and punishment. If our brains are making our decisions for us subconsciously, how can we be responsible for our actions? How can our legal system punish criminals or God punish sinners who aren’t in full control of their decision-making processes?”
He also references the book Free Will by neuroscientist Sam Harris and title-quotes him in stating that “free will is an illusion.” Dr. Stenger writes, “We don’t exist as immaterial conscious controllers, but are instead entirely physical beings whose decisions and behaviors are the fully caused products of the brain and body.”
So, essentially having established that humans are determinant blobs of matter with no free will, he then makes the case to the Huffington Post readers that “our largely retributive moral and justice systems need to be re-evaluated, and maybe even drastically revamped” if the people in society are going to be able to protect themselves from “people who are dangerous to others because of whatever it is inside their brains and nervous systems that makes them dangerous.”
That is, he is calling for a new system of morality and justice based on the the presumption that no one is ultimately responsible for his actions, and remember, he’s made it clear who he thinks the “dangerous” people are. This is eerily like the argument used to justify abortion, only we’re all blobs of tissue now.
If you’ve ever been called a bigot for defending the definition of matrimony, a terrorist for openly opposing the slaying of children in the womb by medical professionals and mothers, or a threat to society because you are a Christian, this scientist’s turn towards the political should trouble you because he’s playing into the hands of those who want to violate religious liberty. If someone buys his argument they will conclude, “Religious people are just wired that way, but they are dangerous and need to be controlled for the good of society.” Well, isn’t that what’s beginning?
Fortunately, it’s pretty simple to understand the (almost humorous) flaw in his premise. Atheists are fond of calling themselves free-thinkers, but how does a person conduct “free-thinking” if he has no free will to chose what to think? Did Dr. Stenger even consider that monumental contradiction? The logical conclusion of his position is that there really is no such thing as freedom, and it’s hard to imagine that he really believes that deep down. Surely, if his freedom were threatened, he’d want the opportunity to defend his rights and he’d want his thoughts and decisions to be taken seriously.
But if he does believe it, then poor Dr. Stenger’s got a problem — for it is pure folly for a truly free-thinking intelligent person to think blobs of matter can reason in matters of justice. If humans are (as he calls them) Newtonian machines comprised of matter that calculates the data in the brain according to decision making algorithms, then Mr. Stenger’s own arguments and all his thoughts and actions have no more sincerity to them than the thoughts and actions of a rock that decides to roll down a hill when the forces of nature pull it that way.
Are we to believe the New Atheist free-thinkers see themselves as reasonable as rocks? I don’t know about you, but I’ve never had an intelligent chat with a rock, and the only thing rocks have ever convinced me to do is to get out of their way, not because I respected them for their intelligence, but because I am intelligent and, of my own volition, will act to protect myself in all kinds of creative ways. Even the free-thinkers who don’t think they can think freely because they are desperately trying make sense of their purpose in life to prove there is no purpose, should concede this much and rethink this silliness before it leads to more confusion in our judicial system.
Seriously, when I try to imagine justice dealt out by people who are so determined to deny God that they will deny their own minds, I am not amused. I am horrified.
Category: Featured, Physics, Science, Secularism, Social Issues
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (208)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- How Do You Smile Without A Brain? : Accepting Abundance | October 8, 2012
Was Paul engaged in the folly of free-thinking when he told us to test everything and hold fast to what is good? He didn’t tell us to test everything except what was in Scripture, or test everything except what he wrote. He told us to test everything.
Stacy–
Your entire post is based on the flawed logic that Victor Stenger, while referencing Leonard Mlodinow, represents anyone’s opinion other than his own.
You cannot make the leap from Victor Stenger to “atheists” as a group anymore than I can make the leap that Fred Phelps, as a Christian, represents all Christians.
(You can’t even make the leap that the Pope represents all Catholics. He may represent the official Catholic church–but that is a far cry from representing the opinions or beliefs of all Catholics.)
Then you state: “…he then makes the case to the Huffington Post readers that “our largely retributive moral and justice systems need to be re-evaluated, and maybe even drastically revamped” if the people in society are going to be able to protect themselves from “people who are dangerous to others because of whatever it is inside their brains and nervous systems that makes them dangerous.”
Your wording inferes that the godless heathens that would read the Huffington Post are lapping this up like a cat laps up cream.
You then go on to warn everyone that the atheists are coming to get Christians.
So–we’ve gone from one atheist’s opinion to that opinion supposedly representing all atheists–to that opinion being broadcast and agreed upon–to that one opinion being a “real and present danger” to your religion.
Would you fault me if I said that Fred Phelps saying “God hates fags” outside a church is the proof that all Christians were a “real and present danger” to gays?
“Seriously, when I try to imagine justice dealt out by people who are so determined to deny God that they will deny their own minds, I am not amused. I am horrified.”
You know–when you broadcasted your homophobic rant you received hateful messages. As much as I detested your statements, no one should receive death threats.
There’s a problem, however, when you stretch your statements the way you do. Because while you claim your faith is in danger by the words of others–real gays people are getting really physically gay bashed every day of the week.
And finally–just for the record–there isn’t an Atheist’s Handbook for Destroying Faith in America. Anymore than there is a Gay Agenda.
What is your solution for the American Justice System? The United States has the largest prison population and highest incarceration rate in the world.
I see a lot of compassion and concern for yourself in this post, but not a lot for others.
If you would like a discussion about neuroscientific accounts of determinism and law, read the following articles: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/359/1451.toc
Determinism is not well accepted yet. There’s some controverse.
It’s possible that nothing changes at all in our legal system, simply because we would act as if we were free. So, our entire legal system would be based on the illusion of having free will.
Take a look at Patricia Chuchland’s position as well.
In my opinion, however, determinism is not correct and I do believe we have free will.
Stacy, I think there’s another point (a legal one) maybe you didn’t notice when your wrote your post. Let me quote and then comment:
In this Huffington Post essay he references a book by another physicist, Leonard Mlodinow, who says that the unconscious plays a dominant role in human behavior. As Dr. Stenger puts it, “before we become aware of making a decision, our brains have already laid the groundwork for it.” He goes on to say (read carefully), “This recognition challenges fundamental assumptions about free will and the associated religious teachings about sin and redemption, as well as our judicial concepts of responsibility and punishment. If our brains are making our decisions for us subconsciously, how can we be responsible for our actions? How can our legal system punish criminals or God punish sinners who aren’t in full control of their decision-making processes?”
I then decided to read Stenger’s article and found out some interesting points:
“So, although we don’t have libertarian free will, if a decision is not controlled by forces outside ourselves, natural or supernatural, but by forces internal to our bodies, then that decision is ours. If you and I are not just some immaterial consciousness (or soul) but rather our physical brains and bodies, then it is still “we” who make our decisions. And after all, that’s what the brain evolved to do, whatever role consciousness might play. And, therefore, it is “we” who are responsible for those decisions.
And that’s what it all boils down to. Who cares whether we call an action “free will” or not? Calling it “free will” (as compatibilists do) is too confusing, since it suggests some form of dualism, supernatural or not; so let’s call it “autonomy.” The issue is: what is the moral and legal responsibility of an autonomous person, and how should society deal with wrongdoing?
Obviously, we cannot have a functioning society if we do not protect ourselves from people who are dangerous to others because of whatever it is inside their brains and nervous systems that makes them dangerous. Still, given that we don’t have libertarian free will that sets us above causal laws, it would seem that our largely retributive moral and justice systems need to be re-evaluated, and maybe even drastically revamped.”
I think what Stenger is suggesting is that our legal systems (both common law system, like the legal systems existent in GB and in USA, and civil law system, shared by continental Europe and Latin America) are based on the assumption that one must be punished if a criminal act is perpetrated. In common law system, there is the idea of means rea, a guilty mind, a requirement to conviction. In civil law system, there is the idea of culpability.
Well, a man can only be found guilty if he’s responsible for his actions, presenting also the intention of practicing the act classified as forbidden and criminal. It follows that there’s a straight connection between mens rea and free will. In fact, it’s possible to state that means rea requires free will and indeterminism.
If human brain presented a determinist structure, human beings could even have the impression of possessing free will, but this is a mere illusion. We wouldn’t be free. Since we wouldn’t be free, we could question: how is it possible to convict someone for commiting a crime if he hasn’t any choice at all? Our entire legal system (and moral system as well) would be about to collapse.
If you give up culpability, you also give up the Nobel Prize.
You can’t have it both ways.
We get blame AND recognition, or neither.
Want to know what’s especially funny about this? B.F. Skinner made the argument not against determinism, but in favor of it. He famously argued in Beyond Freedom and Dignity (what a horrid title) that it was time to stop recognizing greatness because greatness is fully determined by genes and the reinforcement history.
Funny if not so very sad what materialists have done to our culture with their junk science.
Do you think the social engineers will give up their grammy awards, their Nobel prizes, their honors? Of course not. Why? Because they are not rational. They are frauds.
Jeff,
Did you really just cite an early 20th century behaviorist, of which none can be found in the scientific community today, to represent materialists of today? That is very much akin to citing the Spanish Inquisition in support of why modern Christians are dangerous. A little less bias and skewing of data, please.
“Funny if not so very sad what materialists have done to our culture with their junk science.”
Yeah, what a bunch of junk! That hunk of metal and plastic and silicon right before you that is capable of sending all sorts of information thousands of miles sure is junk. The incredible expansion of life expectancy and decreases in child mortality are all junk. We should just go back to the dark ages where fathers sold their daughters before they died at around 40 years of age. You are so blinded by your bitterness; it is absolutely disgusting.
Reminds me of Our Ford in Brave New World — “History is bunk.” Wow. That’s some crazy stuff you said Tom.
Something bad happened in history.
Therefore all history is meaningless.
Surely you don’t mean to say that???
Stacy,
Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said history is meaningless. If anything, I would warn against concluding that all history is bad because of one (or a few) bad event(s).
The point I was trying to make was about judging an entire group based on a single man’s ideas, many of which no one today believes to be true. Refer back to the Inquisition and ask yourself if you would want your beliefs, your lifestyle boiled down to the atrocities of savage men hundreds of years ago. Not a very good representation, now is it? If you think it is, then I think we know which one of us is talking “crazy stuff.”
If you’re a materialist, you are forced to accept this embarrassing view, that there is no fault or merit.
The alternative, to admit that “the brain has a mind of its own” is merely to push the argument up a level, and force yourself to answer: where did the “mind” come from, and is a mind that decides honorably different than a mind that decides in favor of evil?
If determinism is true, how can someone present an opinion or writing an article and states the he’s the author of that article.
It doesn’t make any sense at all.
Neuroscientific analysis of the Brain suggests determinism.
Well, I think determinism is not the correct theory…
As I read again what I wrote about abolishing achievement, isn’t that exactly what our current political ruling class is doing?
You have to grant them this much: they are taking their atheism to its logical conclusion.
Jeff–
“As I read again what I wrote about abolishing achievement, isn’t that exactly what our current political ruling class is doing?”
Could you please cite a concrete example of what you mean by “how our current political ruling class is attempting to abolish achievement”? For example–how is this demonstrated by, say, investing in high speed rail?
Then please tie that to the atheist tendencies you are citing. Which, I have to say, confuses me when we have national frenzy over whether or not a particular politican is the “right” religion.
And finally, I’d appreciate it if you could cite any examples of politicans implimenting or suggesting we impliment any kind of legal tolerance based on lack of free will.
Thanks.
Easy, cminca, like taking candy from a baby!
When the state of what’s left of California puts out bids for the BEST contractor to build its light rail, does it:
A. Pick the BEST contractor
B. Pick a contractor based on the union membership or physiological characteristics such as gender or race.
Answer?
Actually Jeff–they make the decision based upon the laws and regulations that have been legally adopted by the legislators elected to the government by the citizens of the state.
If anyone felt those laws were unconstitutional–either on a state or federal level–they are, of course, free to challenge them in the courts.
In addition, since California has state referendums, anyone concerned about the standing of those laws and regulations is able to challenge them if they do so according to the referendum requirements.
And since some of these laws and regulations are decades old, I’d further contend that they are not an indication of “current political ruling class”.
Now please tie that to abolishing achievement, atheism, and legal tolerance.
BTW Jeff–as someone who solicits construction bids and manages construction projects for a living–I can tell you there is no such thing as the BEST contractor.
There is only such a thing as the contractor that appears best suited for a particular job at a particular time.
The suitability of a contractor for any job will be determined on their ability to match materials and manpower to your particular need in your particular time period.
They can be right for one job, and disasterously wrong for the next.
Do I have Free Will? No. Did I choose to be human? No. Did I choose to be male or female? No. Did I choose to live in the 21 Century? No. Did I choose to live on the planet earth, the color of my skin, my parents, suburbia? No, no, no, and no.
We do not have free will. It’s nice to believe, but I’m sorry, we do not. We have as much free will as a child, who is asked: Would you like to have a nap now, then a snack? Or a snack, and then a nap in 20 minutes?
The problem I have with this line of discussion is the perception of others. Does an alcoholic homeless person have Free Will? According to Catholics, it’s YES! Therefore, he made his decisions, and he should live with them.
It is no better than the Caste system.
This Atheist is trying to suggest compassion. He’s trying to suggest mental illness. He’s trying to suggest that this person is not able to make wise decisions and we are responsible for the weakest in our society.
I would hope that Catholics would be the light in our darkest hour, but I just don’t see it. From what i can tell, Catholic’s on this blog would just like the world to burn
You chose to make this post.
If you didn’t, then please ask Stacy to delete it.
Clock is ticking.
Mjeck–
I know exactly what you mean with the example of the homeless person. I see someone like that and think “nobody grows up wanting to live out of a garbage can and mutter at nothing”.
“I would hope that Catholics would be the light in our darkest hour, but I just don’t see it. From what i can tell, Catholic’s on this blog would just like the world to burn”
Actually–I think you’ve got that a bit wrong. From what I’ve seen on this blog, the Catholics think they are going to toast marshmellows and laugh at the rest of the world burning.
I don’t think the person they claim founded their religion would likely agree.
Catholics do accept alcoholism as a disease. But we couldn’t talk about mental illness and its impact on responsability unless we accept that we do have free will. If there’s no free will, what’s exactly a mental illness? Lack of free will would imply that we can’t control our actions. Mental health means we do have conscience and control.
Take, for example, bipolar disorder: free will is somehow limited because the disease blocks the ability to reason clearly.
Well, accepting determinism means that we don’t have free will(at least accepting hard determinism, not compatibilist proposals). Consequently, it’s not correct speaking of lack of conscience or lack of discernment for bipolar patients. The idea of a bipolar disorder would be questioned: if no one’s possesses free will, no one can actually be bipolar.
No one could be bipolar, or considered guilty as well.
A possible solution is living as if we were free. And then we “choose” an illusion.
But wait!
God is also an illusion!
So, is it OK to actually live as if we were free, knowing that determinism is the correct theory, and then live in an illusive and imaginative world, but it’s not Ok believing in God because God is an illusion?
Interesting, don’t you think?
No one possesses, I mean.
Ana, you are so right.
When an author puts his or her name on a byline, what does that mean?
Does it mean the author STANDS BEHIND the statement?
Not if your an atheist and/or materialist.
It means you have been conditioned to affix your signature after typing at a keyboard, like a rat.
Sad what the materialists have done to our culture. Sick actually.
“Does it mean the author STANDS BEHIND the statement?
Not if your an atheist and/or materialist.”
Your implication is that an atheist will never stand behind their statement.
Pretty easy to prove you wrong. I’m an atheist. I say your comment is wrong. And I stand behind my remark.
Also, Ana, don’t be snowed by fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imagery) reports.
When scientists say the person’s decision has been logged neurologically before the conscious, intentional statement of the decision, they don’t mean that they “see” the decision somewhere in the neurons.
They mean they can build a complex mathematical model that can predict the answer the person would give at the conscious level.
Question. Isn’t that sort of how cognition works? We have a vague sense, an “intuition” of our decision first, then we formulate a rational answer in support of our preference.
What exactly are the atheist materialists finding?
Evidence that we have a preliminary judgment of our decision before we can articulate the reasons why.
Yawn.
Read Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow. He won the Nobel Prize for outlining how cognition actually works.
If only atheist materialists could rise to his level, they could win Nobel Prizes too!
Oh wait, but the atheist materialists wouldn’t deserve the prize because their accomplishment was pre-determined!
Oh dear!
cminca,
Ok over here is unicornia, the officials say, “hey who can build us the best and safest light rail for the most reasonable cost?”
Over here is california, the officials say:, “hey, we need a contractor we can hire who has very particular physiological characteristics and a union card!”
I wish California the best in its problems, but it certainly seems to me that achievement is very low in priority when it comes to picking the light rail contractor.
I’m perfectly willing to be proven wrong! I don’t live there but I’ve heard the weather is lovely!
Once again a poster on this blog repeats what he says as if repeating it over and over makes it true.
Jeff–you are implying that the State of California picks a contractor based on union rules and physiological characterists ONLY. That is incorrect.
They solicit bids from a pool of contractors based on a wide array of requirements–which MAY include union rules and physiological characteristics. From the pool of bidders they select the contractor best suited to their project, schedule, and budget. That is how anyone familiar with contracting selects a contractor.
Or are you simply stating that in your mind, under no circumstances could, for example, a black lesbien union contractor be the best one for the job?
That only makes you a bigot–it doesn’t prove your point.
And I’ve yet to see you tie this to today’s political climate, atheism, or a tolerance of illegality.
(It is now your cue to repeat your remarks and follow them with Q.E.D.)
cminca,
When you said my statement is wrong, that was not you, it was you genetics and reinforcement history.
Seriously, you can’t have it both ways. Either there is freedom or there isn’t.
You seem to believe there isn’t freedom. Yet you want the benefits of freedom.
Sort of like the occupiers.
Maybe Stacy has hit a nerve here.
“When you said my statement is wrong, that was not you, it was you genetics and reinforcement history.”
Argueing facts not in evidence.
You seem to believe there isn’t freedom. Yet you want the benefits of freedom.”
Again, arguing facts not in evidence. And mis-stating my position to argue your own.
cminca,
You said the “best” contractor does not exist?
I claimed that our current ruling class has set out to abolish the idea that there is a best and a worst.
Q.E.D.
Q.E.D?
Hardly.
Your statement simply proves you didn’t read and comprehend mine.
cminca, I’m done, you called me a bigot.
That might work in California.
It doesn’t work here.
Fail.
Jeff–
You made, and repeated, statements which implied that California used union enrollment and physiological characteristics as the only reason to release contracts. you further stated that this was proof of “abolishing achievement” therefore implying that the people chosen were not capable to compete in an open market and/or were less than their competition.
This remark is inherently bigoted. In California, in New York, and even in unicornia. And that is a fail. (and if you don’t want to be called a bigot–don’t make bigoted remarks.)
Finally–I’ll take this opportunity to point out, once again, that you have not tied your statements to the ruling political class, to atheism, or to legal tolerance.
Whoa, no cookies for you Cminca. You called Jeff a bigot. Bad, bad, bad.
Regarding what he said about contractors, we just moved from MA. We saw it all the time. Think BIG DIG. I’ve also raised in the “Everybody-gets-a-trophy” social experiment. Nope, doesn’t work. All they end up with are meaningless plastic gold-colored cups on their dresser because mommy signed them up.
Stacy,
When you or Jeff has 25 years of experience soliciting and managing construction contracts then you can tell me about contractors.
A contract went over budget?
Here’s a clue–the budget, prepared by an “estimator”–may have been wrong.
Or there were hidden conditions. Think about finding asbestos and lead on a job site even though you’ve had a third party consultant test and report that hazerdous materials don’t exist. Do you think it might be possible that they found geological conditions that no report or investigation reported. (I don’t know this to be the case–I’m using it as one entirely possible situation. Another possible situation? That buildings adjacent to the cite were experiencing damage because their foundations were not built correctly and therefore the job was delayed in order to shore up adjacent structures.)
It is incredibly easy to sit back and point fingers–especially when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
So–before I accuse you of anything–are you suggesting that the big dig went overbudget and behind schedule because of minority or union involvement on the project? Are you then implying that the job would have gone correctly if the site had been limited to white male contractors?
Because, Stacy, there is a word for that.
Ana,
You do not have Free Will to make decisions outside of your Genetics or Environment. The brain is a complicated organ, but still an organ, capable of malfunction.
Epilepsy and left-handedness were once signs of the Devil. Now it’s biological. When will Schizophrenia and Bipolar be biological for you? Why attach guilt and responsibility? Why not attach a helping hand?
You believe in Free Will, yet because of Adam’s sin, believe we are bound to fall in disparity – So why try and change anything? Atheist’s believe in Determinism, yet want to make society sustainable and livable for everyone. Funny how ideologies work.
When a person has access to health care, food, shelter, education; they tend to make wise decisions. Put a person under the stress of poverty, mental illness, war, guilt; and you have a recipe for poor decisions.
Anyone who argues otherwise, from my experience, are people who were born on third base, and then thinks they hit a triple.
Cminca,
“Your entire post is based on the flawed logic that Victor Stenger, while referencing Leonard Mlodinow, represents anyone’s opinion other than his own.”
LOL.
Yes, I know, I know.
He’s published 11 books, numerous articles in numerous popular atheist magazines, has served as President, Fellow, Member of the Advisory Board for numerous atheist organizations, and writes regularly for Huffington Post. And don’t forget, his slogan was plastered on Richard Dawkins’ party buses.
But — yeah, no one agrees with him at all. You got me there, man! Whoa. Silly of me to think any atheist is antagonistic towards religion.
Hey, I have an idea. If you don’t agree with what he says, then explain why. He’s as close as you get to *Magisterial* for atheists and all I dealt with in my article was his articulated position to expose it’s nonsense.
So Stacy–using your “logic” I will now presume that, as per my earlier example, ALL Christians, inlcuding all Catholics, do are just as bigoted as Fred Phelps.
You and Jeff want to live in black and white worlds. Got it. Therefore, you and all other Catholics want “fags” to die.
Thanks for clearing that up.
“Hey, I have an idea. If you don’t agree with what he says, then explain why. He’s as close as you get to *Magisterial* for atheists and all I dealt with in my article was his articulated position to expose it’s nonsense.”
First–Atheists don’t have a “magisterial”. No matter what you say (or continue to repeat) atheists are not organized in an atheistic belief system.
Second–you didn’t write the article to expose “it’s nonsense”. You clearly wrote the article to, once again, articulate how prosecuted christians supposedly are.
Stacy–
Before you accuse me of wanting the state to take control of children away from their parents–let me just clarify.
I don’t believe the world is black and white.
You state your opinions as if they were facts. You make sweeping generalizations. You, as I pointed out in my first comment, jump from one man’s opinion to the arguement that hordes of atheists were ready to run around with pitchforks and torches to round up Christians to persecute.
That doesn’t fly for me.
Two errors–
meant persecute, not prosecute in the first
The second response was intended to respond to Stacy’s “let parents raise their kids” remark and my posting of a news citation.
I think we should plaster Jeff’s quote on buses: “If you’re a materialist, you are forced to accept this embarrassing view, that there is no fault or merit.”
Clear and pithy!
Mary, oh YES! I like Jeff’s comment about culpability and the Nobel Prize too.
So Stacy–
Yesteday a 16 year old girl in Kentucky was stalked and then beaten by 4 men. She was beaten for being a lesbian. They yelled anti-gay slurs at her while the 4 of them attacked her
And we know, based on your reasoning, that since Fred Phelps is Christian all Christians agree with him that God hates fags.
And since Catholics are Christians and you are a Catholic then you believe that God hates fags.
And since it has been suggested that anti-gay rhetoric (like Fred Phelps and you) as well as anti-gay rights advocacy (like the Catholic Church) increases the incidence of crimes against gays, we can therefore make the conjecture that you are a proponent of hate crimes against gays.
And since the 4 guys who beat the lesbian (and her two straight friends) were shouting anti-gay slurs while they beat her–we are in a position to state that you, and Fred Phelps and all Christians and all Catholics are responsible for bodily injury and a hate crime against a 16 year old girl walking to the store.
Well–you can either take ownership or agree that one atheist doesn’t speak for all atheists.
I look forward to your response.
And cminca,
“And finally–just for the record–there isn’t an Atheist’s Handbook for Destroying Faith in America. Anymore than there is a Gay Agenda.”
Stenger’s written the handbook.
And, ahem: http://gayagenda.com/
Stacy–
You like to cite original definitions and want to be so precise, unless it doesn’t fit your example.
To be precise–I stated that there was no “Atheist Handbook for Destroying Faith in America”. (The use of capitals indicates that the words are part of a title.) When you can find a reference to that particular publication (I’d like it’s Library of Congress reference number please) feel free to send it along.
As for a blogspot entitled “the gay agenda” I’d point out that it is a news site, not an actual agenda.
But nice try.
There is no good scientific reason for upholding or dismissing free will, because there is no coherent model or even definition for consciousness.
I’m not even convinced that the questions people ask are the right questions, let alone whether the answers are correct.
It may be that materialism is compatible with free will, but we don’t see how because we don’t have a coherent understanding of what free will is. It may be that, if people ever understand what consciousness is, the question of free will and materialism will not be important anymore.
Thanks for linking the article. It’s interesting. The social implications are disturbing. Calling philosophy science and changing social systems to match sounds like Lysenkoism. It cannot end well.
Exactly, Ace. The topic is very interesting because it poses so many challenges to our world view.
Name,
How do you try to resolve these challenges to your world-view?
Ace this is extremely difficult! I have no idea how to solve that problem. I’m still not conviced of determinism, but for those defending determinism, this is a huge problem.
Mjeck,
“What is your solution for the American Justice System?”
Parents raising their children.
‘All-non white people in America should be sent back to where they came from, and me and my kids will fight to make that happen,’ said Cynthia speaking from a motel room in Los Angeles where she and two of her children, Brad, 23 and Ariana, 17 were preparing to attend a Nazi rally.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275567/Nazi-nightmare-The-U-S-parents-teach-children-idolise-Hitler.html#ixzz20KIa4tCp
Two things for the atheists here:
1) Please explain how you can be a “free-thinker” if you have no free will to chose what to think?
2) Please address what Jeff said, “Either there is freedom or there isn’t.”
Thanks!
Your choices are determined by your genetics and your environment. You never stopped believing in God, so you never chose to believe in God in the first place
Mjeck,
So do you not really believe you are capable of free-thinking?
Do you believe there really is no freedom?
Please answer with a yes or no.
Stacy–
Your question to the atheist:
“Please explain how you can be a “free-thinker” if you have no free will to chose what to think?”
assumes, as a basis, that all atheists believe that we have no free will to chose what to think.
Why are you assuming that ALL atheists 1.) believe we don’t?; and 2.) that ALL atheists believe the same thing?
And I find your/Jeff’s questions interesting–let me, as a gay man, ask a corrosponding question.
Do you, as a person of faith, believe that all people are made in the image of God and that there are inalienable rights that apply to all? Do you, as a person of faith, and as an American citizen, agree with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that “Injustice against one is a threat to justice anywhere”?
And if so, how do you reconcile your stance on SS marriage?
Mjeck,
I think you’re missing my point entirely. I’m speaking about an interesting and challenging problem to philosophy of law(being a lawyer and legal teacher myself): the idea that our entire legal system is based on the assumption that we do have free will. Well, structuring our legal system on the basis of free will means that legal philosophers are adopting an specific philosophy of mind frame: that indeterminism is the correct view and that we are responsible for our actions.
However, suppose that legal philosophers are wrong and determinism is the correct view, as Stenger pointed out in his article. Determinism will pose a very difficult question to legal philosophers (and legislators as well): if people don’t possess free will, why convicting anyone for comitting a crime? Is it fair to send someone to jail if that person is not ultimately responsible for her actions? We can argue that this isn’t fair at all. We can’t convict anyone anymore.
Some philosophers of mind and, more specifically, some neurophilosophers, defend the idea that we do have the impression that free will exists and it is a human quality. But this is, in fact, nothing but an illusion.
Again, that view poses a question to legal philosophers: Is it ok to build our entire legal system on an illusionary tale? Law is supposed to determine which actions are forbidden, which ones are mandatory and which ones are permitted ( by dividing our actions, we’re using deontic logic). But if there’s no such a thing as free will, does it make sense to actually forbid something?
That’s the point made by Stenger. Legal philosophers don’t have a solution for the problem posed by a determinist theory. But this something we shoul seriously take into accontu if neuroscience and philosophers of mind keep presenting convincing arguments in favor of a determinist view. As I said to Stacy, our entire legal system would collapse.
Let’s now examine what I was trying to say to you.
Suppose legal philosophers decide that we should write our laws as if we were free. This is an illusion, in fact. In this scenario, we keep pretending nothing has changed.
But if determinism is the correct theory, as many philosophers and neurophiloshers argue, one consequence, as you have noticed, is that we can’t actually be responsible for our actions and the sin, as an action perpetrated against God’s Law, can not be attributed to anyone. Well, if there’s no sin, it isn’t necessary to be saved. Determinism give her hands to a materialist view and the logical thing to do is admitting the God doesn’t exist. Determinism and materialism lead to atheism.
Let’s go back to our legal system example. If, after examining the problem, we do know that determinism is the correct theory and we became atheists because is nothing but an illusion, why, for an atheist convinced that determinism is the true, should admit that legal system can be planned as if we were free?
Well, a possible conclusion to determinist-atheists is that writing laws as if were free is no sollution at all, because we could not logically be restrianed by an illusion, a fiction.
And what kind of answer legal philosphers can present to solve that problem, since we now reject an illusionary God and also an ullusionary legal system based on an illusionary free wiil?
That”s Stenger point: there is no amswer to this problem. That’s why we would need to rethink our legal models and moral system.
Now, let’s face the problem of mental illness.
I don’t know exactly how american legal system regulates the issue, but I can say to you that western legal systems normally don’t convict a person if that person has some mental illness. If someone with a mental disorder commits a crime, and that person is very dangerous to society, the solution presented by legal systems is conduct that individual to mandatory treatment.
What I was trying to say to you is: but what exactly is a mental illness? Is our concept of mental health also based on the assumption that we do have free conscience and free will?
If this is the case, and determinism is correct, once again we need to rethink our idea of mental health and mental illness.
Do we have those answers? No, there’s no alternative model to mental illness admitting the idea of determinism.
Our entire philosphical view of the world admits the existence of free wiil, impacting on the way we develop our legal system, our moral system, our religious(or mithological) system and even our health parameters.
Determinism is such a powerful idea that our entire world view needs to be remoldelled.
However, my personal opinion is that we do have free will, I’m still not convinced of determinism, because it is so counter-intuitive, don’t you think?
By saying that I believe free will is correct, I’m not saying that you don’t have the right of having a different opinion or that you don’t have the right of being an atheist or even try to peruse some compatibilists theories.
What I was trying to do was presenting the challenges posed by determinism. A really, really hot topic. No attempt of doing proselytism and using you as my target. Although I think of myself as a catholic, I don’t know theology enough to engage in apologetics.
Justing presenting the imoact to legal philosophy.
Thanks Ace.
In the historical writings of the Church there is a lot of consideration of free will, but you have to grant an inextricably intertwined body and soul, created by God who is a loving Creator and who desires to be united with His creation in perfect justice and mercy.
I’m probably saying it clumsy because I’m only learning about philosophy and history, but my husband taught me some time ago to think about philosophy in terms of symbolic logic. If the definitions are used consistently, and the logical path follows whether you break the argument down or build it back up again, then the logic is tight. The Church essentially does this to sort out what is true in different philosophical systems and what is not. If you read, for instance, the Summa Theologica, enough, you will start to see how you could use symbols instead of words (well, words are symbols) and it all holds together. That’s why this stuff from Dr. Stenger made my brain hurt with the glaring contradictions.
St. Thomas studied the “person” in depth.
This is Jeff’s expertise. (I just hope I haven’t muddled it all up.)
The only way we will ever advance in psychology is to return to dealing with the whole person, body and soul. This nonsense about the quantum mind (all to deny God, really) only leads down mindless paths and it helps no one.
I challenge anyone to read some of St. Thomas’ writing, and give it an honest chance, and see if you don’t find that you understand yourself better. Or read the Catechism, or the Gospel. Christ showed us how to live, and how to live in eternal bliss.
Ana,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your comment where you explained this:
“Our entire legal system (and moral system as well) would be about to collapse.”
And the guilty mind and guilty action. Yeah, I got the sense that is what he was saying, but you explained it *why* the system would crumble if there was . That is an excellent point about the connection between mens rea and free will. Thank you!
Thanks, Stacy!
I have read some of Thomas Aquinas. I do not understand much of it.
What is a soul?
Ace,
Stacy starts to answer your question about what a soul is below. It may be helpful to say that a soul gives life to a thing. The soul makes something a living thing. All living things have a soul. The catholic understanding of man is that our soul is spirit. Man’s spirit being in the image and likeness of God has the ability to know the truth of things (the intelectual power) and the power to choose the good (the will). The spirit and matter combined is what makes one human. A moral choice is most free when the intelect is not in error and the will moves infallibly towards what is good.
I’m not a theologan (or good speller) so someone who is may be able to correct me or add to this.
I believe reading Summa Theologia would be helpful to aithests and Christians alike because it gives a good foundation of concepts and words that can then be discussed.
Comment
Oh boy. It’s easy to say, but hard to say without using any words (that logic thing) that lead to erroneous conclusions. And hard to be brief.
The human soul is the intellect or the mind, something that exists, that is a substance (St. Thomas uses the word “subsist”). There are two kinds of substances, corporeal (material) and incorporeal (immaterial, spiritual). The soul is incorporeal.
St. Thomas begins to cover it here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm
But you’ll quickly see that even reading one sentence requires you to go back somewhere and understand what the words mean if you don’t already. He is VERY careful with words, and this is the English translation. It was written in Latin – the language of languages.
Jeff, by the way, reads it (more like studies it) in Latin.
Ace,
Also, my personal experience…
Why should you care about understanding the soul and the body? It helps us to understand ourselves better. It’s an insanity to say, “Well, I don’t have a soul, so I don’t have a mind, so I’m just matter.” It leaves you wondering what the heck you are then? Who are you?
When you contemplate your own soul and your own body in relation to it, a lot of things come into focus, especially about relationships in life.
Ana,
Do we have Free Will? No we do not. You are allowed a set of choices based on your genetics and environment. Our lives are determined by the physics of our Universe.
If you think that choosing between a Coke and a Pepsi, or which city you want to live in is Free Will… then fine, I guess we all have Free Will.
Building a Justice system based on an ideology or philosophy is always best. Building a Justice system by what is best for society as a whole is a good idea. That means a charter of basic human rights, access to health care, a living wage, shelter, food; with these the outcome tends to be low prison populations and incarceration rates.
America’s problems are systemic. They have a third world country living right inside its borders; and with no real ability (or maybe will) to change.
Building a Justice system based on an ideology or philosophy is always BAD POLICY. …oops
Ana,
I’m not an Atheist.
From a purely philosophical/theological/theoretical discussion, Free Will is an Illusion.
From the practical discussion of the Justice System, it’s dangerous to even contemplate the imaginary.
I totally understand what you are saying, from a philosophical point of view.
What is Mental Illness? It’s when you believe God is talking directly to you.
Oh, Mjeck! I think I don’t understand what you’re saying.
My point was: if determinism is true, why should we have prison in the first place?
Legal philosophers don’t know an answer to that problem posed by determinism.
It’s ok to me if you decide to become an atheist and thinks believing is some kind of mental illness, but again: how can I accused pf being mental ill for accepting the existence of God if I don’t have free will? If I don’t have free will, maybe my brain is just designed to stick to an illusion, but I can’t become atheist since determinism prevents me of embrace atheism.
Do you see my point now?
Philosophers and scientists didn’t provide a answer to the challenges of determinism. That’s all I’m saying.
If you would like to explore some political consequences to determinis, I was just wondering: anarchism would be the option, don’t you think? No rules at all..
I’m talking from an strict philosophical point, not by a religious driven one, man!
Ana,
I’m not an Atheist.
From a purely philosophical/theological/theoretical discussion, Free Will is an Illusion.
From the practical discussion of the Justice System, it’s dangerous to even contemplate the imaginary.
I totally understand what you are saying, from a philosophical point of view.
Stacy,
Yes, there is no freedom.
Alright Mjeck.
Another view.
“The issue is: what is the moral and legal responsibility of an autonomous person, and how should society deal with wrongdoing? “
I do not see a new question here, just the Godless world expressing new possibilities and digging itself deeper into the hopeless pit of meaninglessness. We already deal with a simpler case in the legal insanity defense. Criminal law has been and will be used to imperfectly defend society from harm, harm as defined by majority vote (solid as a rock) – look up recidivism.
Has there not been a trend already in progress in human thinking that argues loudly for a point of view that all points of view have no meaning? We are just a gigantic pinball machine reacting to a ball…….of course it is not explained why “ouch” should be important at all to anyone else but me……….and what does important mean anyway………..I think I am loosing my mind………daisy, daisy, give me your answer do.
“If you and I are not just some immaterial consciousness (or soul) but rather our physical brains and bodies, then it is still “we” who make our decisions.”
The ignorance admitted to with this “if” and the assumption that these two aspects of humanity are not joined in a mysterious way makes the entire essay a glimpse of our future insanity or is it more Huff Poo.
Of course that could be just my particles talking so unless you believe in God you are not allowed to attack me.
Howard,
I don’t judge your particles and their inability for compassion towards your fellow man. It’s just how you were raised
Interesting. How can particles have compassion?
Howard,
You are oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus; and zero compassion.
Is this a comment about an individual or do you propose that compassion does not exist at all. How are you measuring compassion or are you just guessing?
Stacy,
I will look at this Aquinas translation, and see whether I can make heads or tails of it.
It is certain that I have a mind. I’m a thinking thing, so I have to have a mind; this much seems obvious. But maybe the mind can be explained by the complex workings of the brain (and maybe also other parts of the body). I am not sure how to rule out this possibility.
If there is a non-material component to this, what does that mean? Can non-material components be divided? Can they be located somewhere, and if so, how do I know that the component is actually there? How can something without any matter have a location? What’s occupying the space?
Where is space located?
Howard. I don’t understand the question.
“How can something without any matter have a location?”
Where is space located?
I’m sorry, Howard. I don’t understand the question.
Ace,
Spirit is where it acts. You know that it is there because your are a living person. It is the life that is in you. Your spirit is not destroyed when you die, your spirit is seperated from your body (this may explain why a dead body can be made to twitch by shocking it, but few would say running an electric current through a dead body makes it living)
It does not have parts being that there is no part of it that is not the whole of it. It can not be devided because it is immaterial and without parts. It does not take up space, it acts in you now being that you are a living person.
I read Theology for Beginners by F.J. Sheed before I started reading Summa Theologia which was very helpful to me.
Howard,
I find that the Catholic’s on this blog do not have compassion. If you just jumped into the conversation and haven’t read the thread, I apologize, and I’ll ask what I asked Stacy:
“What is your solution for the American Justice System? The United States has the largest prison population and highest incarceration rate in the world.”
Stacy’s reply is that people should raise their children.
Sometimes I speed read and miss something, I didn’t sense a lack of compassion, maybe a difference in approach to the problem.
“The United States has the largest prison population and highest incarceration rate in the world.”
Part of the problem is incarcerating for drug use. The success of Portugal may be one answer to this. Another is the horrible rate of fatherless families in the black community. Another is the trend towards government dependence and diluting the importance of the traditional role of marriage. Many problems, many potential solutions. As long as politics and the lust for power is the national sport, I doubt we will ever make a dent in our problems.
I don’t think that Stacy has exhausted her thoughts on this subject. A strong, loving family is primary, the socialogical studies show that.
Mjeck,
What exactly have I done for you to say that I, as a catholic accessing this blog, don’t have compassion?
This is so generalized that it seems to me you’re rushing your conclusions…
We’re not moral people…
What’s your point?
You like presenting some moral issues and see if catholics are moral, in the sense that we do things you consider correct. For example, there’s a blog post discussing gay marriage. Catholic Church don’t accept gay marriage because the Church understands that a marriage requires openness to life and a homossexual relationship cannot generate a new life. Then you criticize catholics for not being compassionate for rejecting the possibility of a gay marriage. But by criticizing us for not being compassionate you not only think we, as catholics, are wrong, but that we don’t even have the right to present that opinion. And then the logical consequence is excluding us from the debate. This logical consequence requires a secular society, or a very specfic type of secular society, one that excludes religion from public sphere. But this is very complicated issue, because we cannot be christians (or Jews or Muslims or Mormons) just inside the church or in our bedrooms and our opinions go to square with us.
When Catholic Church defends a set of moral issues, the Church is defending the view that best describe or acommodates human beings as image of God. That view is extremely consistent and well posed. Of course someone can desagree, because we’re free people (yes, we’re more than molecules) and we are responsible for the views we believe in.
Sometimes people get too emotional by defending their views. But how we conclude that catholic people frequenting this blog aren’t compassionate? Who am I exactly for you? Someone who wakes up in the morning and think about better ways to be cruel?
Do I lack compassion by saying that you do have the right of presenting your view, although that view doesn’t necessarily comforms to catholic view and my own personal view? And therefore am I the one who isn’t compassionate? Is Stacy the uncompassionate one?
Do you think your judgment about my moral compass and my level of compassion is compassionate?
Maybe you’re going to far with your conclusions, Mjeck.
Name,
Catholics are no more moral than anyone else, as far as I can tell. They don’t improve the world around them, anymore than anyone else, as far as I can tell. They have no more compassion than anyone else, as far as I can tell.
They are indistinguishable from anyone else, as far as I can tell.
Name–
“Catholic Church don’t accept gay marriage because the Church understands that a marriage requires openness to life and a homossexual relationship cannot generate a new life.”
So your stating that the ability and desire to have children is a requirement to get married in the Catholic Church.
Tell me-is a fertility test a requirement before marriage in the Catholic Church? Does the Catholic Church refuse to marry a woman beyond child bearing years? Does a woman entering menaupause automatically void the marriage (as she is no longer open to life while her husband is)?
Your explaination for the CC not accepting SS marriage is a nice excuse–but it doesn’t hold up.
“But by criticizing us for not being compassionate you not only think we, as catholics, are wrong, but that we don’t even have the right to present that opinion.”
No one is trying to stop you from having or expressing your opinions. No one is trying to make the CC perform SS weddings. We are trying to stop you from using your opinions to deny people equal civil rights in a plural, secular democratic republic.
And when you are expressing your opinion–we’re going to get to express ours. So if we disagree with Brad Pitt’s mother, or with Stacy, we are going to express that opinion. Some will express it well. Other’s won’t. The same as some may express their anti-gay opinions well, and others won’t.
“This logical consequence requires a secular society, or a very specfic type of secular society, one that excludes religion from public sphere.”
Actually, no. It just requires a society that doesn’t allow the laws of any one religious faith, or lack of religous faith, to have dominion over the secular laws of the country. We Americans call this the first amendment.
As for the whole “compassion” thing–I disagree with Mjerk. I see a difference between many Catholics and the organization of the Catholic Church. That organization, and those Catholics who parrot the heirarchy, are far more dangerous than everyone else. Because they seek to limit the freedoms that some Americans are fighting for. And for that I say “shame on them.”
MJeck,
I am Catholic and have read all of the comments up to this point but not further yet. I have no authority to speak on behalf of the Church or others so these suggestions are mine alone. First, it may be helpful for those that believe in God and those that don’t to seek God where He has said that he is and because we are a diverse people perhaps a good starting point would be seeking him in all that is good, true, or beautiful. I’m not saying that people should not be free to believe what they do, I’m simply saying that God should be looked for, not with certanty but at least with the hope that if he is there, He will reveal himself in a way that is not contrary to ones reason. Second, recognize the inherent dignity of all human persons and treat them with the dignity that they deserve, not based on what they think or do, but based on their humanity. Third, recognize the social nature of humanity and protect the rights of individuals to form relationships that respect the rights and dignity of individuals that are social beings. Forth, be good stewards of the world, neither neglecting it nor stripping it of its resources that belong also to those that come after us.
These are just my thoughts. I did not put specific legislative measures in this comment because I believe that living this way and teaching these things to the next generation would be a foundation for a society that is compassionate and that tweaking laws without this foundation would be like rearranging the furnature in a house built on sand.
I don’t know you Mjeck but I bet we would get along in real life.
Alan
Cminca,
I was expectating that kind of reply, especially regarding the comment on marriage.
When I mentioned gay marriage, I did it because it seems to be the issue that bothers Mjeck most.
Concerning the catholic view on marriage, it’s the union between a man and a woman, with the purpose of procreation and also intimate longlife relationship. You’re right when you say that there are infertile couples and their relationships are still considered a marriage. For the Church, marriage is also a sacrement, and it represents the will of God.
Gay marriage isn’t accepted by the Church because it intrinsically denies one of the dimensions of marriage: the openness to life; the kind of relationship is unnatural, it’s not according to God’s will and it’s an imoral act. Of course, I’m just trying to summarize catholic view, and I’m no expert.
This is a very hard issue. The Church understands marriage as a centerpiece of society and families as the nucleus of society. Being also a sacrement, marriage is sacre. Admitting the possibility of gay marriage challenges the basic structure of our society and consequently has a disaggregational potencial, besides being against natural law and an imoral act.
That view, of course, is quite threatening to homossexuals because It seems to be impossible to conceive the existence of a place, a locus, to homossexuals in our society if that view continues to be defended.
However, the Church will continue to present that view on marriage, because the Church is defending the sacred character of marriage.
Is it impossible a convivence?
How to solve some problems related to sucession, issurance etc?
Maybe recognizing some rights to homossexuals couples, without recognizing in homossexuals unions a marital status.
Is this enough for homossexuals movements?
I don’t think so. Why? Well, because homossexuals movements are defending a change on our moral paradigms, in a way that homossexual behavior would be considered moral.
And that’s our actual location: a discussion on the morality or immorality of homossexual behavior.
I think trying to prevent the Catholic Church or any christian group of opposing gay marriage is anti-democratic. Christians are also members of the society and they have the right of presenting their opinions in the public sphere.
I still think that denying a dissenting voice to the Church, in particular, and to Christians, in general, represents a secularist view. It is an attempt to restringe the expression of religiousness to the private sphere.
Name–thank you for engaging. That is more respect than I’ve seen from Stacy, Jeff, or Howard.
You claim gay marriage is “unnatural”. Yet we have examples of same-sex pair bonding throughout the animal kingdom, so I can’t agree.
“Not according to God’s will and imoral”. OK–I’d remind you that this is the Catholic interpretation of God’s will. It is not shared by all. I’d also remind you that at one time in this country people were using the same language about inter-racial marriage.
But let’s get back to the basis of this remark. There are anti-gay remarks in the old testament which Catholics uphold. There are other restrictions in the old testament which Catholics disregard. Seafood, Crops and fibers are three that come immediately to mind. So unless you’re living Kosher don’t talk to me about the old testament.
So then we have Paul, who may have been mistranslated (prostitution vs. homosexuality). Who never knew Christ.
And then we have Christ himself. Who never spoke about homosexuality.
And, biblically, can you give me a considered answer as to why you think that–if homosexuality is such a huge issue with God the Father–it wasn’t one of the 10 Commandments?
“How to solve some problems related to sucession, issurance etc?
Maybe recognizing some rights to homossexuals couples, without recognizing in homossexuals unions a marital status.”
WELL BULLY FOR YOU. That’s mighty big of the CC to decide what rights and responsibilties law abiding tax paying citizens of this country are allowed to have. Tell me–will this recognition be directed by the vatican? Because I kind of remember that allegence to a foreign government is considered sedition in this country.
And I’d remind you that this country has a history of trying “separate but equal” and it failed miserably.
“I don’t think so. Why? Well, because homossexuals movements are defending a change on our moral paradigms, in a way that homossexual behavior would be considered moral.”
Actually, as a gay man, I can assure you that you are wrong. I don’t give a rat’s behind what your church or Fred Phelps thinks is moral. I want equal rights because my behavior isn’t effecting YOU. And you’ve yet to acknowledge that your behavior (because unlike homosexuality religion is a choice) is effecting my abiltiy to be a free and equal member of my plural, secular country.
I also want young gays and lesbians and bi-sexuals and transexuals and questioning youth brought up in a society where they are not, far and away, the largest target of hate crimes and bullying. And I don’t want them committing suicide because they don’t have any place to turn when the “loving christian” community tells them they are filth and kicks them out of the house.
“And that’s our actual location: a discussion on the morality or immorality of homossexual behavior.”
And what you haven’t addressed is the fact that the CC doesn’t get to decide what is moral, or immoral, for a plural, secular society.
Tell me–how does a SS couple materially effect another person’s marriage? How does what I do in my home effect you? How is it that you can condemn the gay pride parade but not condemn mardi-gras?
“I think trying to prevent the Catholic Church or any christian group of opposing gay marriage is anti-democratic. Christians are also members of the society and they have the right of presenting their opinions in the public sphere.”
No one is trying to prevent the CC from presenting their view. No one could honestly suggest that Dolan has any problem getting his message heard. The problem is two fold–1.) Less and less people are listening to that message, and that angers the power brokers; and 2.) you’re not getting to say anti-gay things without getting challenged. Which is when people like Stacy cry “persecution.”
Which moves us to my final point–
“I still think that denying a dissenting voice to the Church, in particular, and to Christians, in general, represents a secularist view. It is an attempt to restringe the expression of religiousness to the private sphere.”
We are a secular country. As I pointed out–we have the first amendment to the constitution that means no one particular religion gets to dictate in the USA. I believe that your final sentence meant to say “restrict”.
Sorry–you are attempting to restrict the free exercise of civil rights in the public sphere based on what your religious beliefs. And that is anti-American.
Thanks Howard, what you wrote makes a lot of sense to me, and a good place to start improving the quality of life for Americans.
No, Mjeck, this is not what you said. You said and I quote:” I find that the Catholic’s on this blog do not have compassion”.
Only catholics on this blog don’t have compassion. That was what you said.
For you to say that, you need to present evidence. So, I was asking you: explain to me why I’m not compassionate.
This is just some kind of test to you, isn’t it? Do you actually like Stacy’s posts? Do you feel positively impressed by her conversion story?
Is this some kind of sophistic discussion? Are you just presenting your arguments just to see the way we react? Is it a reality show? Let’s see how much those catholics can take…
What exactly are you doing on this blog? Are you looking for catholicism?
Do you feel attracted by Catholicism?
I visit Stacy’s blog because I like her posts. And sometimes I join discussion.
What about you? Besides saying we’re not compassionate, what exactly are you looking for?
Cminca,
I’m sorry for not presenting my name. I simply forgot. Let me tell you I’m not American (you can see that by noticing my english, full of latinism and presenting some grammar mistakes I only notice after posting). In fact, I’m from Brazil, where we’re facing a quite advanced discussion (or lack of discussion, depending on your view) on gay marriage. Firstly, Brazilian Supreme Court has decided that admitting a homosexual union is not contrary to our Constitution. Secondly, another court, the second one in importance, decided that it is possible for homosexual couples to get married and finally, state courts throughout the country have oriented civil officials to register homosexual unions as marriages. Before that, federal pension agency already confered to the homosexual companion some rights.
Recently, a gay couple registered a child as their son. Both gay parents have received parental status. A cousin of one of them has accepted to generate the child, donating the egg to be fertilized and also the uterus.
Right now, the Congress is going to examine a bill on homosexual prejudice, enforcing gay rights to the point that no one can even question the morality of homosexual behavior.
As you can see, the so-called gay agenda is quite advanced in Brazil, being pushed by a very well versed lobby composed by journalists, writers, soap-operas and TV shows screen players.
Some extremely important legal issues have been raised with our Supreme Court decision, because the court engaged in some kind of judicial activism, replacing the Congress and its rule on passing bills and laws.
Why am I telling you all that? In order to you to see that gay marriage is, nowdays, a cosmopolitan issue
The idea of elaborating a civil union status but not a marriage wasn’t created by me (and apparently infuriates you, since I was called a bully), but proposed by a current Brazilian senator, a sexologist nationally known as of the greatest representatives of homosexual rights. She was also mayor of São Paulo, brazilian biggest city.
My personal opinion is that a civil union could solve a pragmatical issue (confering rights to homosexuals couples) with preserving the marriage.
Concerning that homosexual couple, who decided to have a son of their own, with the help of a cousin: I don’t the details, but I think any child has the right to have a mother. The way the child was conceived, that right may have been denied. I particularly think it was wrong and yes, it was imoral.
Does the Church have the right to present its view to a so-called secularist society? The values presented by the Church are Universal. Western society isn’t unfamiliar with universal values, since human rights are admitted. From a historical point of view, human rights were nothing but natural rights with a different name. This has something to do with not acknowledging the natural character of some rights and, of course, its possible theological origin. As you can see, it’s also part of the secularization program being implemented in our contemporary society.
I don’t think American society is a secular society. In fact, American society is deeply christian. People coming from England did the trip to America seeking for religion freedom.
But the point in Stacy’s post, if I remember well, was about determinism and free will. I think we need another post to better explore legal status to homosexual couples.
But I’m not a bully, sir! Come on!
Ana–no need to point out issues with your English. It is far better than my Portugese.
First of all–I wasn’t calling you a “bully”. The use of the word in the phrase I used it in would be more like saying “horray”. It is another one of those English words that has multiple meanings.
The “universal values” you talk about predate the catholic church, they are not the sole belonging of the catholic church, or any one church. Secular Humanism would claim the same values and would, in my mind, excercise them far more evenly than the CC.
These “universal values” are therefore not a basis for claiming that any other teaching of the church is, by extension, good.
I don’t think American society is a secular society. In fact, American society is deeply christian. People coming from England did the trip to America seeking for religion freedom.
Yes Ana–early settlers did come to America looking for religous freedom. If you want to argue that then the majority of the continental US would be free of catholicism.
But that really doesn’t matter. Because our constitution–the basis of our laws–says that the laws of our country will not be based on any one or any group of religous beliefs. And in so much as it is a religious argument that is stopping gays from enjoying full citizenship, it is wrong.
But the point in Stacy’s post, if I remember well, was about determinism and free will. I think we need another post to better explore legal status to homosexual couples.
I’d disagree Ana. The point of Stacy’s post was about claiming persecution. That is the underlying message of the majority of her posts.
Sorry for the typos. I always forget to check spelling and grammar before posting…
Ana,
Why am I on this blog? I would like Stacy to apologize for her comments about homosexuals. Since that will NEVER happen, I would like her to never discuss homosexuality again. But that will NEVER, NEVER, EVER happen, either.
Howard said I went too far with my conclusions, so I backed up and said that Catholics are no more compassionate that anyone else.
You first visited the website and then you saw Stacy’s comment about homossexuals.
But why did you visit the blog in the first place?
Mjeck, if you have no need in your youth for a St. Vincet de Paul Dining room or in your old age for the Holy Family Home of the Little Sisters of the Poor who sing and pray while a person is dying, being there for the dying who have no family, or at any age for Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity, you have not educated yourself on the selfless mission of countless orders created in centuries past and near that dedicate themselves to the discarded by society. The Catholic Church has ideals dictated by Jesus Christ that are followed openly and often with great danger to themselves. A story about Mother Teresa is worth retelling.
While wandering the streets of Calcutta she happened upon a small hungry child. She took this child into a bakery and asked the owner if he would give the child some bread. The owner spit in her face and told her to leave. She said to him, now that you have given me a gift would you give a gift of some bread to this child? Heartless, compassionless Catholic? We look up to these in our Church and are taught to emulate them. How better can the Church be than to exalt the best of us and hope the least learns something. She would not approve of a persons homosexual behavior but care for that person if he was left dying in a garbage dump or in an AIDS ward.
We are not in competition with other persons who have compassion, but with ourselves to become like Mother. Read something of Church history that does not try and eliminate God from our lives.
Howard,
If Mother Theresa would care for homosexuals, then that is the kind of attitude i would like to read from Catholics on this blog.
If you are capable of loving Homosexuals and Atheists, then please find every avenue to do so. You can still have discussions about Free Will, and Science.
I like when Stacy writes about Catholic History, Doctrine, Art, Philosophy. Then I can learn something.
I don’t know how to communicate to Stacy that she has hurt people with her comments.
Mjeck, you have moderated your rhetoric since your first entry that I read that you wrote on this blog. I like to think that you are learning something about what Catholic’s are about.
Another step is to understand that it is possible to separate love of the person from disapproval of that person’s behavior. God does that with us and we do that with our children. Yes I do understand the misery that homosexuals have endured from past associations, and try to explain my disapproval in a loving way, but, anonymous internet com boxes tend to be more like the WWE than polite dinner conversation and I have been known to call even my dear, dear daughter an idiot!
Disapproval will be taken hurtfully by homosexuals, I cannot and I suspect Stacy cannot present it in a more agreeable way. The subject of marriage is involved nowadays and I have a stake in that discussion. Few seem to be thinking of my feelings and treading lightly.
Howard,
I find that everyone that comments on this blog is quite intelligent in their own right, which is something I have learned about Catholics. I have yet to even share my experiences with God.
I personally could not imagine a world without homosexuals; without Broadway, without our finest literature and music, without our fashion. To imagine straight men dressing straight women… yuch.
Having this group integrated into our society, as much as you do not approve, brings stability and sustainability.
“I personally could not imagine a world without homosexuals; without Broadway, without our finest literature and music, without our fashion. To imagine straight men dressing straight women… yuch.”
Unfortunately I do not live near Broadway, I did for a brief period right across the 59th St bridge. Don’t tell me that the road versions are as good. I don’t think I could tell a dress made by a straight man from one made by anyone else. Is it the colors or the shape? Yes, Tim Gunn is a very interesting person. At one time I was the only white man or one of a few in a sea of black faces for months on end. Your experiences and your surroundings are unique to you, and maybe desired by you only.
“Having this group integrated into our society, as much as you do not approve, brings stability and sustainability.”
Cminca said, “gays are 2.6 times more likely to be attacked than blacks….41.5 times more likely than whites……”
We don’t have stability and integration with blacks, yet we have a ½ black President. I don’t want to be black and I don’t want to be reminded of what homosexuals do to each other and I don’t want to be any other race or person. We all avoid things in life that are not of interest to us, even you……yuch.
Howard–
“The subject of marriage is involved nowadays and I have a stake in that discussion. ”
Please tell me how a same-sex married couple materially impacts you and your marriage.
Explain to me why a same-sex married couple should be considered any different in the eyes of the law.
Remember–since we are talking about a CIVIl marriage religious arguements don’t count.
Remember–since you cannot get married without a license from the state religous history doesn’t count.
Remember–since we are a plural, secular democratic republic arguing a judeo-christian history of USA is not only inaccurate, but it doesn’t count. (Unless you want to claim Muslims, hindus, Taoists, Buddists, and everyone else aren’t “really” married.)
Remember–since there is no criteria about fertility or child bearing or child rearing in any marriage license–claiming it is about children is a non-starter.
Remember–since the divorce rate in the Bible Belt is higher than in MA, which has had legal same sex marriage longer than any other state–claiming that it will somehow harm marriage is not defensible.
And remember–since religion is a choice–you better be prepared to give up your own marriage rights if you are going to claim that homosexuality is somehow a choice.
Now–once again–please give me a reasoned, logical position against same sex marriage based on how it is going to effect YOU.
“I don’t want to be black and I don’t want to be reminded of what homosexuals do to each other and I don’t want to be any other race or person.”
Wow oh wow oh wow.
I don’t even know where to start–except change a few words and you’ve got Germany 1933.
““I don’t even know where to start–except change a few words and you’ve got Germany 1933.”
Yes, you would have to change my words to suit your purpose.
For Mjeck I was reminiscing about experiences. We wish to be near those experiences that are most meaningful to us. My experiences in West Africa was with several wonderful tribes that had delightful cultures. Easy to laugh, smile and friendly and had nothing to do with race, just culture. To transplant that to the U.S. would be impossible. Black American popular culture is often imitated by younger people like Vince Vaughn in “Be Cool”. I have no interest in adopting those behaviors (hope that is clearer).
As for Homosexual behavior, it is anti-family, anti-natural law, often aggressively cruel, and is selfish and distasteful. What they do is the issue, not what to do with them.
“Now–once again–please give me a reasoned, logical position against same sex marriage based on how it is going to effect YOU.”
Lots of things I can’t invoke so I’ll have to be more creative.
The first problem is that you seem to have in past posts declared that you are not married unless the state says so. I find that ludicrous. God can declare by his word alone something to be, the state has no power to do that. You can be issued a dog license but that does not create a dog, you can be issued a business license but that does not create a business, you can be issued a building permit but that does not create the building, you can be issued a marriage license but that does not create a marriage – it only controls members of the population that can enter into that agreement and produces revenue.
There is a gigantic problem if the state needs to declare you are married before you actually are. Which state? Our federal government, my state which does not recognize SSM, Massachusetts, Iran. Does that mean that you become no longer married if you leave your state and go elseware? An impossible situation to be in – married, not married, married, not married as you fly over sovereign airspace.
Once again we are way off subject.
Howard
You stated:
“The first problem is that you seem to have in past posts declared that you are not married unless the state says so. I find that ludicrous. God can declare by his word alone something to be, the state has no power to do that.”
That is simply, and demonstrable, incorrect.
Seemingly according to you, God can declare two people married. But in the plural, secular, democratic republic of the USA, that doesn’t result in a legal marriage unless there is a document from the state.
And I’d bet you that you’d say that the pope could, in God’s name, grant you an annulment. But in the plural, secular, democratic republic of the USA, that doesn’t result in the legal dissolution of the marriage until you go in front of a judge (the representative of the state) and get a divorce.
So–unless you are planning on dealing with the legal realities of life in the USA, you argument doesn’t hold up.
(And to even take it one step further–who’s God were you talking about? Yours? A hindus? A shamans? If a wiccan was marrying a buddist, who’s God is calling the shots that are, in your mind, somehow superceeding the state? If a wiccan man is marrying a catholic woman, but the catholic parents of the bride don’t agree, can their version of God trump the bride’s version of God and the groom’s version of God? Because you say so?)
And I’d remind you that you were the one that brought up same sex marriage and your stake in it.
Howard–
You state–”As for Homosexual behavior, it is anti-family, anti-natural law, often aggressively cruel, and is selfish and distasteful. What they do is the issue, not what to do with them.”
Anti-family?
Well, first I’ve already covered that fact that the divorce rate in MA, with SSM, is less than that in the bible belt states. And I don’t see you or your church calling for divorce to be outlawed.
Now–read this and tell me this isn’t a family:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/azliving/articles/2011/05/02/20110502gay-dads-ham-family-12-adopted-kids.html
(And I’d remind you that each of these kids was thrown out by a hetrosexual “family”.)
Anti Natural Law
“Same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species, from worms to frogs to birds, concludes a new review of existing research. It’s clear that same-sex sexual behavior extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature: for example, bonobos, dolphins, penguins and fruit flies,” said Nathan Bailey, the first author of the review paper and a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Biology at UC Riverside.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm
Often aggressively cruel–please cite examples and sources. Or are you just fantasizing about the Folsom festival?
Selfish and distasteful. Selfish? Explain please. And then explain how that effects YOU.
Distasteful? To you possibly. Not to me. Not at all. Which circles us around to the whole “choice” issue. If you find that homosexuality is so distasteful that you, under any circumstances, could not choose it–doesn’t that argue that it isn’t a choice? Because otherwise you could wake up tomorrow and decide to be gay.
I’ll take it a step further and ask you when you decided to become straight. Tell me all about the educated decision process you went through–the research, the “pro and con” list, the opinions you solicited–before you “decided” to be straight. I look forward to your response.
Just like I said to Stacy earlier—you want to see the world in black and white (figuratively and, seemingly, literally). It isn’t. Just as there are severely left handed, severely right handed, and ambidextrous people–there are those with only same sex attraction, only opposite sex attraction, and everywhere in between.
You would say we were created by God this way. Do you think He made a mistake?
“What they do is the issue…”. So you are one of those that are hung up on the mechanics of sex? I get it–you think “yuck”. Well that’s the same thing I think every time I imagine hetrosexual sex.
“…not what to do with them.” Since you are denying me equal enjoyment under the law, I’d suggest you are “doing” to them.
Or were you implying some sort of “solution”?
All of this has been hashed over ad nausium on the 500+ post thread about gay marriage. Sucked in again. Take it back there.
So–no answer, and you just dismiss the topic. Well–it doesn’t negatively impact your life–so why should you, as an American or a human being, care.
Once again proving it is possible to claim to be Catholic without actually being “Christian”.
Hmmm where have I seen this before – must be the same isolated gays that attack the people with dissenting viewpoints over and over again…. you know – the outliers….
brad-pitts-mom-gets-death-threats
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/07/10/brad-pitts-mom-gets-death-threats-after-penning-anti-obama-letter-to-editor/?intcmp=obinsite
Death threats are inappropriate in any circumstances.
Now let’s put it in perspective–shall we?
“Last, we compared the rate of victimization for homosexuals to that of the other groups. The figures show that homosexuals are 2.4 times more likely to suffer a violent hate crime attack than Jews (8.3 divided by 3.5). In the same way, gays are 2.6 times more likely to be attacked than blacks; 4.4 times more likely than Muslims; 13.8 times more likely than Latinos; and 41.5 times more likely than whites, according to the FBI figures. The basic pattern holds by years as well as across the years.
The bottom line: Homosexuals are far more likely than any other minority group in the United States to be victimized by violent hate crime.”
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/anti-gay-hate-crimes-doing-the-math
You may also want to look at this to see why hate crimes against gays are under reported:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,001.htm
So you see–while you and Fox are getting your drawers twisted about people saying nasty things to Brad’s mom gays are actually getting beaten.
But I suppose you’re going to suggest that it is the same small cadre of “outliers” running around the country beating gays–right?
AMC,
The first century Christians were desert outliers, along with many of the Saints. Don’t be so quick to dismiss someone because they are different from you… And Brad Pitt’s mom….really?
Catholics with a good educational level aren’t the rule everywhere: in developing countries and in Africa, you’re going to find catholics with a very low level of education. That’s quite common in Brazil, for example. Poor and uneducated catholics. But not presenting a high educational level do not prevent those people from being truly catholics. They can all understand what the Church teaches about Jesus and eucharist and redemption. The devotional aspect is quite developed. Saying prayers, praying the rosary, going to Sunday mass, praying in the morning and at night… Very devotional, less intelectual.
Normally, poor people are the ones more grateful fo God’s blessings…
Thanks for that, Ana. Mjeck, the Gospel message is something so simple a child can understand it and yet so deep that the greatest intellectuals, like St. Thomas Aquinas, can spend a lifetime contemplating it and still conclude that in the end, all there is — is love. Humble faith is all anyone needs to begin to appreciate the Mass.
Poor people are the ones most grateful for God’s blessings…
Spirit is where it acts. You know that it is there because your are a living person. It is the life that is in you. Your spirit is not destroyed when you die, your spirit is seperated from your body (this may explain why a dead body can be made to twitch by shocking it, but few would say running an electric current through a dead body makes it living)
Alan R: This is a helpful response. Would it be fair to say that the spirit is something like electricity? Could it be measured, do you think, in a similar way, in terms of energy?
Also, imagine that I had a very impressive technology, that could take a dead body, and organize all the atoms in this body, so that they had the exact properties that the body had 10 years before death.
Do you think the body would come back to life? Would it have a soul?
Do you think that this person would be the same person who died, minus ten years worth of memories? Or would this person be a different person with memories of the one who died?
Also, if the spirit is separated from the body when I die, where does it go? Does it move in a particular direction, and can we find out how fast it moves? Or does it disappear? If so, where does it go?
Ace,
I am not a physicist or trained theologin and don’t have the authority to speak with certainty about what the teachings of the Catholic Church are on all of your questions but based on what I understand, here are some thoughts that might point you in the right direction.
1. I think that it would be reasonable to say that the spirit is like electricity in a certain sense but not in every way. I understand electricity to be energy that is caused by the difference in polarity of atoms so it would have a physical cause and spirit is immaterial and has no physical attributes so in this sense they differ. But in other ways they are alike. Electricity has a source which is some other type of energy (light, chemical, heat, etc…) that is converted into electricity by converting one form of energy into another which is reflected in the theory of the conservation of energy. Spirit has a source and that is God (one immaterial being that is created by another immaterial being) So both electricity and spirit have a source. Both have power and so can be measured. The power of electricty is measured by the amount of “work” that it does. The power of spirit I suppose could be measured inderectly by the amount of “work” that the being does.
2. This is a very interesting question. I want to say before speculating that this may be one of those questions that can’t be fully explained by natural reason alone. It is an article of faith that God is the giver of life and that human persons are the unity of spirit and body. There are examples in sacred scripture where a person being dead was brought back to life for a time, but this is always attributed to the power of God. It is also an article of faith that at the resurection, our spirit will be reunited with our bodies, but again, this is by the power of God. In your example of having technology that could reconstitute a person, if the person began to live again, that would be by the power of God. One who does not believe this may erroniously attribute the life to the technology and not to God, but there may be no way to prove this.
Catholic theology indicates that the spirit does not reside in an organ of the body such as the brain but gives life to the person. That the organs of the body such as sense and brain inform the intelect about the truth of particulars as apposed to universals I think is acceptable to say. So if a person was dead for 1 moment or a thousand years, but came back with the same identity then the person was either close to but not dead or was brought back to life by an act of God outside of what is natural.
3. The spirit is not visible to us because it has no material to reflect light which is what our eyes see and no other method of physical detection can determine its place except indirectly by observing life. Your spirit will not be destroyed but this can not be proven but is believed by faith based on the revelation of God in his word which is sacred scipture and sacred tradition. Also by faith we believe that the spirit will go to heaven or hell…I think hell is down
Speed is the measurment of movement of one body in relation to another. Spirit is not a body so I don’t know that speed can be attributed to it.
Your questions were very thought provoking. I used to be agnostic too. I still enjoy studying about these types of things. Fortunatly for me, I have not come accross any teachings of the Catholic Church that contradicted what I felt to be good or believed to be reasonable. If there are any errors in what I wrote, it is because I have speculated beyond what the church teaches. I hope you have a good night.
Alan
P.S. Hi back to you Stacy
Thank you Alan! And welcome. It’s nice to hear from you. Nice to hear from Howard and AMC again too!
Ace, before I read St. Thomas I had already formed my thinking with prayer. I knew and accepted the Creed. Before St. Thomas, like I mentioned, gets to the discussion of the human soul (in the Summa) he exhaustively develops the proofs for the existence of God and that Christ was the Son of God, true man and true God with a Divine nature and a human nature. The development of this doctrine in the early Church and through St. Thomas’ time in the Middle Ages is where our concept of “person” even came from, the contemplation of God and God as man.
St. Thomas also starts out at very, very beginning explaining what a science is, a body of knowledge. This is where I learned to ask people to think about what constitutes “proof.” So many today have been conditioned to ask whether something can be measured scientifically, and think that is the only form of proof that exists. They do this because it’s one way to say, “I’ll believe in God if you can show me the evidence.”
But — that’s not really true. Most of these people would accept the conclusions of abstract mathematics as true, and they’d accept it on the grounds of deductive or inductive reasoning as proof.
It’s the same with the proofs of God and the soul. We reason it. (Remember I said St. Thomas is tight as a matter of symbolic logic, like a mathematical system?)
And last, here’s something I’ve noticed about this hesitancy to accept that we have a soul. People know, but are afraid to admit it.
If I have an indivisible, spirit, a mind unique to me, then I have a soul.
If I have a soul, then I have to admit that spiritual bodies do exist.
If spiritual bodies exist, there must be the first cause of it all.
That first cause of it all must lay beyond the material world.
Therefore, if I admit I have a mind, I am compelled to admit God exists.
Eh?
The part people miss though, and St. Thomas also develops from scripture, is that God could only be perfect – perfect Love, perfect Beauty, perfect Truth, perfect Mercy, perfect Justice — all the things we know are right and good. Perfect Good.
And a God that is all those things could only be a PERSONAL God, a being that knows and loves His creation in eternally mysterious ways beyond our ability to comprehend. But, in trying to comprehend, we discover more about ourselves. Knowing and loving. Don’t all people have that desire? To know and be known? To love and be loved? To belong?
Ace and Alan,
A gracious new reader sent me this article and I’m still reading some of the “futurist’s” work to try to understand what he is saying.
I did kind of chuckle at the title:
http://www.inc.com/kevin-bailey/immortality-possible-in-just-30-years.html
Immortality? Oh, people have been talking about immortality for much longer than he thinks. That’s what the Bible is all about.
I thought you would find it interesting as it goes with what you are discussing.
Stacy,
Thank you for the links!
Maybe I should start a little closer to the “beginning”.
I’m not big into proofs (unless it is abstract math we’re working on!). I’m more just trying to find out what’s true, and that involves arguments that convince me, with some evidence behind them. I need to have some idea about how things work, or else I tend to leave the idea for now, and be agnostic about it.
Currently, about the soul, I’m just trying to understand it. I already think that we have a mind, but I don’t know what causes the mind, or what can explain it.
Currently, I am looking for arguments and evidence that make sense to me, and then I can weigh them, and make a rational decision.
Ace,
I’ve been there. If you are looking for what is true, for arguments and evidence, it would be useful to consider the proofs.
For me, it came down to this question.
Is there more to me than just my body?
I knew there was. I knew there was more to my newborn when I held him, even before I held him in my arms. *He* was something more than just a lump of matter. And the love I felt was something more than just physics.
It is kind of scary thinking that you have an immortal soul and that you are eternally responsible for your actions, but when I started to “walk in that light” as the say, so much became clearer.
Trinitarian theology is really all based on love and communication between persons so much so that they are one.
Have you ever read the Gospel of John? It is beautiful.
You also might be interested in the discussion for this same topic going on at The American Catholic. You are of course welcome to jump over there if you find it interesting.
http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/07/10/dr-stenger-and-the-folly-of-free-thinking/
Ana,
I didn’t know you were from Brazil. I was just reading a book today and yesterday about Macumba and Umbanda. Interesting read.
Stacy,
“Don’t all people have that desire? To know and be known? To love and be loved? To belong?”
This is the mind of Christ, thanks for posting this.
Cminca,
You will need to argue that Gay Marriage is in Howard’s best interest. Giving everyone basic human/civil rights ensures Howard’s right to worship. Even if that means he does not recognize homosexuals as a legitimate group and even if he needs to hold his nose every time he sees a gay man with a wedding band.
Democracy without human rights has this nasty way towards majority rule. If Howard finds himself in the minority; in a country that fully supports Gay Marriage, and does not recognize Howard’s religion; he will soon wish he had supported basic human rights from the start.
What I hear from Howard, is that Mother Theresa would love, care for and not judge homosexuals, and that Howard would like to be more like Mother Theresa. There is still hope.
It’s very interesting indeed. However, I know nothing about them. I may tell you that the term macumba presents a pejorative tone. It’s associated with evil forces (kind of).
Although being very popular in Brazil, those religions suffer from some kind of prejudice, as if people adhering to such faiths are dealing with dark and evil forces (and sometimes they are)
Spiritism is also popular in Brazil, with a consirable part of the population been influenced by Allan Kardec and reincarnation.
Besides that, the population is largely catholic, with a growing number of evangelicals.
Visiting american catholic websites is quite interesting to me, as I can see how catholicism works when it’s not the main professed religion. And american blogsphere are way much organized…
a considerable part of the population being influenced by Alan Kardec (even soccer players are named after him)
Alan,
Interesting answers! I will have to think about them more before responding. I also have some Summa reading to do.
There was one response that I was immediately curious about:
I think that it would be reasonable to say that the spirit is like electricity in a certain sense but not in every way. I understand electricity to be energy that is caused by the difference in polarity of atoms so it would have a physical cause and spirit is immaterial and has no physical attributes so in this sense they differ.
Isn’t location a physical attribute? Isn’t location something that only applies to material things?
When I think of immaterial things, like numbers and sets, I don’t think they are located anywhere. But a soul or mind seems to be located somewhere, so it seems as though a soul or mind must either be material, or must be fully explained by material things (in which case, when we assign a location to a particular mind or soul, we are really assigning a location to the matter that “produces” the soul).
Maybe this whole understanding is flawed, but it’s difficult for me to even imagine what it means for an immaterial thing to have a location.
I’ll answer the question for you. Something is located only in relation to reference point(s). 1,000 miles directly up from the exact center of your town can be found. What you find there may be empty space. Located within the confines of your body is lots of stuff and lots of emptyness.
Ace,
I had/have very similar questions to the ones that you are asking and still have many more. I began to read catholic theology about 3 years ago just before entering the church but I personally did not enter only because of the theology. The theology has for the most part been an aid to prayer and prayer has aided my study. I am finally at peace with what I believe by faith and what I know by natural reason and I no longer need or desire to separate them. But I came by my faith the hard way and that is another thing altogether.
Just to clarify a few things that you wrote above that might be helpful. Matter does not create or produce soul or spirit, it is more like matter being properly disposed is the occasion for the spirit which is created by God to be united to it. Spirit has no quantity or dimension so it is only said to be in place because it is acting on this particular matter and not on some other. So my spirit makes me a living person but does not make you a living person, your spirit does that.
I believe there comes a point in every good thinkers power of reasoning that leaves them wanting just a bit more proof then they can get on thier own. I suppose we loose a bit of our humanity when we start saying to ourselves that the answers to the hardest questions just don’t matter…so stay human and keep asking
Peace,
Alan
P.S. here is a question for you. What type of proof would be necessary to conclusivly show that life was 100% material? I don’t have an answer to it so I thought I would ask.
Alan,
Thanks again! Lots to think about… Thomas Aquinas says something like “the soul is the form of the body.” Aristotle says this too. What on earth does this mean? It has the sound of reason, but I can’t make heads or tails of it.
“What type of proof would be necessary to conclusivly show that life was 100% material?”
I don’t think that the same people will be convinced of the same things based on the same evidence. Let’s look at an example. Rick Delano and me. Both of us are reasonable people. We’ve looked carefully at certain scientific issues. Rick’s not convinced about certain things that I’m convinced about.
The question of whether life has a 100% material explanation (whatever this exactly means) seems like it might be a scientific question at some point, in which case there will probably never be an answer. Science is about probabilities and thresholds. The best it could possibly do would be to say that something like 99.9% of life can be explained entirely in terms of matter and its interactions (the percentage could of course be much higher, but not 100%), and there’s no current reason to think differently about the last 0.1%. Science starts from the premise that everything I believe is possibly wrong. This poses a difficulty in my mind about accepting many of the Christian answers, because they can’t be accepted as possibly wrong.
I love my wife. I’m 100% positive that she loves me. I can say this, because I don’t treat my wife’s relationship as a scientific question. It’s something more profound than that.
I’m not yet willing to make that sort of transition with regard to Christian or Catholic beliefs… but I want to try to understand more.
I’m leaving soon on a trip for a week or so, and won’t be back for a while… if you do have any responses, leave them here, and I’ll read them when I get back. Thanks already for the helpful responses. Lots to think about.
“I love my wife. I’m 100% positive that she loves me. I can say this, because I don’t treat my wife’s relationship as a scientific question. It’s something more profound than that.”
I love God to the limit of my ability. I’m sure that He loves me but sometimes I am not. I can say this because He created what science investigates and His word makes sense to me. That is a very profound thing.
“Science starts from the premise that everything I believe is possibly wrong.”
Which does not ever go away even after seemingly incontrovertible proof. Follow the steps taken for an explaination of gravity. We go through this process until we arrive where?
Could the problem be the desire for certainty?
“I love my wife. I’m 100% positive that she loves me. I can say this, because I don’t treat my wife’s relationship as a scientific question. It’s something more profound than that.
I’m not yet willing to make that sort of transition with regard to Christian or Catholic beliefs… but I want to try to understand more.”
It all lies implicit in the statements above.
You already hold Catholic understandings of many important things, and here you hold the Catholic understanding of the hierarchy of the domains of knowledge.
You know there is knowledge more profound than scientific knowledge, and you know that one crucial difference between scientific knowledge and this higher, more profound knowledge, is that the higher domain of knowledge is not contingent.
It is certain.
Sounds to me as if you are already a very considerable way along the road here………
Ace,
Thanks for taking the time to comment back about my question. I was always left desiring something when scientific proofs were used to explain things like love, life, purpose, etc…The sciences are good for alot of things but never seemed to answer the questions that I found most compeling.
To your question about what Aquinas meant when he said that the soul is the form of the body. When I first read the same thing, I had difficulty with understanding what it meant as well. The word “form” in catholic theology has a pretty long history. One of the things I like most about good catholic theology is that the terms are defined and then are eather clarified or elaborated which reduces the instances of someone saying one thing but meaning another without clarification or elaboration.
“form” basically means essance. It is what make something a particular thing and not something else. It is the thing that can not be removed without the thing being something else. For example, the soul is what makes a person human. It is not location, size, age, that makes a person human. You could be on the equater or north pole, big or small, old or brand new, you could loose an arm or gain 100 pounds and you would still be human. But if you do not have a soul (spirit) you are not human, you are something else. So, the soul is the essence of what makes one human and not some other species.
What I like about what St. Thomas said in this case is that if you disagree with him then it becomes necessary to state what it is that makes a person human if it is not the soul.
Again, I’m not a trained theologian so there is probably a more precise definition of “form” but I do hope that this helps a bit.
Have a safe trip.
Alan
A blessed Lord’s Day!
What a fantastic confessor I found today.
I have noticed reading over the (truly appalling) arguments of our pseudo-marriage-advocating friends, that the ability to deny marriage certainly seems to open the door to denying, in the end, anything whatsoever it happens to be expedient to deny.
Now no one is going to change my mind about pseudo-marriage, and no one is going to change our gay-marriage defenders’ minds about free will.
This “dialogue” can continue indefinitely, and no Catholic is going to change their position, and certainly our friends from the pseudo-marriage side of the fence are not going to change theirs.
But then…..what’s the point of dialogue?
Exactly.
In the case of attempting to change the views of the Catholics, or the committed homosexualist activists here, *there is none*.
But then there is what I will call the “Ace vote”…..
Foot in both camps, very comfortable with at least the broad outlines of the materialist world view, but also very open to its ultimately very serious difficulties.
Once upon a time the Catholic Church faced the geniuses of Greek civilization, the greatest of its thinkers at the peak of the development of their most sophisticated knowledge.
The Catholic Church created Western civilization precisely by prevailing in that contest.
It was not a dialogue.
It was a battle between irreconcilable world views.
One or the other would prevail, and the future of the world would be irreversibly dependent upon which one did.
The greatest pastoral error in the history of the Catholic Church occurred when Vatican II decided to stop contesting for souls, contesting with the most powerful of the opposing world views of the age, and instead to start “dialoguing” with them.
Must have sounded like a good idea at the time.
By their fruits you shall know them.
Dear God in heaven, it is possible that as much as 40% of the American electorate can no longer tell the difference between marriage and homosexual couplings.
By their fruits you shall know them.
“Once upon a time the Catholic Church faced the geniuses of Greek civilization, the greatest of its thinkers at the peak of the development of their most sophisticated knowledge.”
The golden age of ancient Greece was 500 BC.
So your arguement only misses by 600 years or so.
“By their fruit you shall know them.”
Your fruit (arguement) is full of worm holes.
Actually, you make an excellent point, cminca.
The Catholics engaged the Greeks well on the downside of that civilization’s true intellectual peak.
This is a very helpful thing to point out, because the Copernicans are similarly well past their own glory years, and the time frames are not far off either.
Thanks.
Very helpful.
By “Copernicans” I am assuming that you mean modern scientists.
And your statement fails.
Because science (real science–not Stacy’s “all science comes from theology” silliness) builds upon itself. While the cc simply keeps repeating the same thing over and over. As if repeating it makes it true.
cminca:
I suppose it is enough to have obtained one excellent insight from you….what was that about acorns again?
As for the meaning of “Copernicans”, it is exactly what the word says.
The word indicates that school of metaphysics which has generalized Copernicus’ hypothesis of a moving Earth, in the form of a cosmological principle, that Earth is insignificant, since all locations are equally so.
This of course has nothing at all to do with science (as the nest of the Copernican cosmologists are quick to acknowledge).
It is a metaphysical assumption, and it is gravely challenged by the first observations we have scientifically obtained, of the largest structure in the visible universe.
Rick–
“Garbage in, garbage out.”
I’m still waiting for a self-professed free-thinker to explain how they can do that if they have no free will.
“Garbage in, garbage out.”
>> Exactly
Stacy,
Are you familiar with the term, False Dichotomy? If not, you can ask Rick, he puts his just before: 1.Theological Data.
I would like to suggest, purely for blogging reasons, that you attempt to understand both sides of an argument before declaring a winner.
Mjeck,
You said there is no freedom. You said there is no free will.
Yet, you say you are a free-thinker. (Or correct me if I’m wrong.)
Please explain how you can have no freedom or free will but can still be a free thinker?
1. Your choices, in any matter, are based on your genetics and environment.
2. When you make a choice, no matter what the choice is, you instantly lose your Free Will in the matter. You no longer have a free choice to make any other choices, other than the choice you have made.
This is my personal conclusion, based on my experiences. If your personal conclusion is that we do have Free Will, I would love to hear a well reasoned argument; however, I will remind you that you always believed in God, so you weren’t even given that choice.
Free Will is something that humans have struggled with since the beginning of time, from David and the Psalms, to Job, and Jesus in the Garden, and not to mention the Saints.
Personally, once you realize you do not have Free Will, you are all the more thankful to be in the hands of God.
I’m curious; does free thinking only pertain to atheism and agnosticism? If does it apply to other religions or forms of religions? For example would Martin Luther have been considered free thinker?
I ask because the other day I was at a gun show(no I’m not one of those people) and the way folks were going on about bible prophesy, end time events and crap like that. I left there thinking to myself that guns, bibles and multi-tools should never-ever-EVER be placed in the hands of idiots.
BTW congrats on your recent purchase of earthly paradise Stacy.
The rest of us are thinking to ourselves what a fortunate thing it is that Andrew doesn’t get to make the laws.
Ah, I think you misunderstood what I was asking.
People will take the Bible and just run with it to fit whatever it is they want divinely justified. There is a phrase that I can’t quite remember but it says to the effect that self taught professors have only fools for students or something like that. For the past 42 years my dad has told me the end is nigh and I had better be paying attention. Maybe it is maybe it ain’t but it hasn’t happened yet and I don’t expect it to. If I dare question his authority he simply says he has been studying it his whole life and if I would just look in the bible I would see. Well I don’t see in Daniel where it says word for word about the events of 9/11. I don’t see where it say that God created white people on the 8th day. I don’t see where it says Nibiru (whatever that is supposed to be) will collide with and/or change the magnetic fields of the earth.
I’m not really calling my dad a fool. What I’m trying to get at is this; Protestant Christianity is run a muck with wild hairs and wild thoughts concerning God’s Will and Word and just exactly who knows the Truth and who can preach it. Does the Catholic Church count those “Protestant” qualities as being a free thinker or group there of just the same as they would an atheist or agnostic or group there of?
I was using my experience at the gun show to illustrate my question not to suggest that I am a fringe right wing extremist seeking your vote. If you do vote for me however, I promise to do a far better job than the current administration is doing now. Who knows there might even be cabinet positions available for you, Stacy or Howard!
Andrew, I am not sure what you mean. If you have a free thought, or make a choice, I suppose the results will be also freely thought of as good, bad or I don’t give a damn by anyone.
I’ll take Ambassador to the Vatican instead.
Andrew:
Let me answer you in plain and simple words.
Protestants have no principle of unity.
When they left the Church, they took with them two things: baptism and the Scriptures (the latter having been chopped up to remove inconvenient books offensive to Dr. Luther).
It was insisted upon by the “great” Dr. Luther that the Holy Spirit would directly inspire any believer with the authentic meaning of Scripture, which subsequent experience (20,000 plus Protestant denominations and counting) has shown to have been utterly daft.
The difference in the Catholic Church is that we have a principle of unity: the Pope, the bishops in union with the Pope, and Sacred Tradition (the Bible and the unwritten teachings which come to us through the handed-down Tradition of the Apostles).
Now as to your Dad, he sounds like quite a wise fellow, who has noticed the signs of the times.
On the other hand, perhaps you think he is crazy for believing that things are falling apart, as the Scriptures *certainly* tell us they will, at some point.
Scripture tells us there will be a great falling away, a great apostasy, in the Church, accompanied by other signs including increased destabilization among governments and increased frequency and severity of natural disasters.
Are we there?
Could be.
Rick, Howard
One might make the argument that free thought and free will are the expansion joints (i.e. agn. ath.& Prot.) of a solid foundation and structure (i.e. the Church; Roman and/or Greek). But just how much stress can those joints take without toppling? 20,000(though I was thinking it was closer to 30,000)Protestant versions of Christianity is a lot of allegedly and religiously confused people not to mention other religions and atheists and agnostics like me. Despite the scandals over the 2000+ years of the Church’s existence, I give the Church it’s due that it has remained unified and structured where as the Protestant end of the Christian spectrum is one big blob of anything goes.
Howard,
At some point in life a man or woman must defer to one who is smarter and wiser than he or she.
Rick,
My dad is a wise and very smart man and I don’t want him to come off as “crazy”. Before he retired he was a highly sought after architect. Right now as we speak there are a cornucopia of houses in Georgia that have way more electrical outlets than a house should ever need thanks to him teaching me how to use an architects ruler and a plug template. That said a person should draw the line as to what is rational as to what is delusional; especially when biblical prophecy is involved.
As far as the original post that Stacy put up concerning Dr.Strenger…
I suppose that even atheists and agnostics are not immune to delusions. The apple does not fall far from the tree so to speak and despite my religious point of view or lack there of, I do share my fathers interest in God….
“That said a person should draw the line as to what is rational as to what is delusional; especially when biblical prophecy is involved.”
>> The Catholic believes it is impossible for “a person” to do this.
It requires a Person to do this, namely, the Holy Spirit, Who provides, as a direct supernatural gift, the protection which renders the magisterium of the Catholic Church immune from binding the faithful to error in matters of Faith or morals.
The Catholic Church has never definitively imposed a particular interpretation on the end-times prophetic passages in Scripture.
She has, however, declared certain of these (Millenarianism, for example), to be incorrect (or, technically, “not safe”) interpretations.
Generally speaking there is much latitude given by the Church.
Only when a given proposed interpretation of Scripture, having gained a certain degree of currency in the Church at a given time, is shown to be in conflict with the Faith once delivered, will the Church act.
Once this happens, all Catholics understand that on this specific question, on this specific interpretation, we can rest completely assured that it is not the right one.
“At some point in life a man or woman must defer to one who is smarter and wiser than he or she.”
Andrew, that person of deference for me is Jesus Christ and his Church. No man or woman is above that. I can defer in situations that are demonstrably superior, like the specific knowledge of your father in architecture – he must also defer to superior architectural knowledge or success. Having built my own home I had to learn from experience that you need to put in more outlets than you think are necessary. Does an expertise grant an automatic expertise in other subjects? Since knowledge is a large part of what we call smart, success in one area does not insure success in another. Human wisdom is of course priceless, but not infinite.
What Free will/thought exactly is has been probably as large a debate as any in history. I don’t’ characterize it as an allowed incorrect deviation from truth. I would characterize it as an ability given to us by God that we do not fully comprehend but know it exists as we know that God exists. Which takes us to the next point.
“a person should draw the line as to what is rational as to what is delusional; “
That is the job of the Church. When you try and do that outside of it, you end up with something that looks like a dog chasing it’s tail.
By the way, “Name” is Rick.
Hi Andrew, nice to hear from you again.
“Protestant Christianity is run a muck with wild hairs and wild thoughts concerning God’s Will and Word and just exactly who knows the Truth and who can preach it.”
I understand, I’ve seen the same kind of thinking too. The things I’ve read and studied from Catholicism leaves me with the clear impression that, yes, free-thinking is a matter of free will. Thinking and willing are the two internal acts of the mind. The more you know, the more you love…
The Holy Trinity, One God in Three Persons, is explained this way, or rather that’s what the revelation has taught us about God and about ourselves made in the image of God. The Son (the Word) is conceived by the Father who gives/communicates all of Himself (except to be the Father) to the second person of the Trinity by an internal act of the intellect. The Father and the Son together as one generate the Holy Spirit, Love itself, as an act of the will. It’s the perfect community. We, too then, can think and we can will, freely. The goal of the Christian life is to train those internal acts towards charity – the virtue of all virtues. It’s a journey to grow in virtue, to accept grace through Christ, to be guided by the Holy Spirit and to ultimately achieve eternal bliss in communion with God.
It all fits together. Marriage is a reflection of the Holy Trinity. I think that’s beautiful.
Anyway, there’s your theology for the day. Nice to hear from you again!
I just want to chime in here and say that the President’s “You didn’t build that” comment is a good example of the logical conclusion of Dr. Stenger’s ideas.
No free will – you didn’t build that. Goes with what Jeff said about the Nobel too. You didn’t earn that.
This is a Marxist mentality too, social materialism.
Stacy enjoys Fox News. Why am I not surprised?
Good thing Jesus isn’t around these days. You’d be forced to endure his Marxist mentality in action: From giving away free bread and fish, to healing the sick with pre-existing conditions! And all without charge!
Jesus also had a lot to say about hypocrites.
A lot.
Actually it was my husband whose parents fled Cuba when he was two years old who made the comparison. That’s how Castro taught the people to think — everything belongs to the government. People were shot, entire families, for not turning over their homes to the government. My husband’s family came to America on a freedom flight and left everything behind to save the lives of their children. He had the opportunity to build a successful life because they did that. Language like Obama used stops him dead in his tracks. What scares us even more are all the people in this country buying into the same mentality blissfully ignorant of history.
Actually Stacy–you might want to understand that the first step of communism isn’t the revolution of the proletariate. The first step of any people’s revolution is a system of government that supports a small amount of rich at the top, a large body of peasants, and no middle class.
You can’t have the french revolution without the Bourbons. You can’t have the Russian Revolution without the Romanovs. You can’t have Mao without the empire. You can’t have Castro without Baptista.
So what have we seen in the last 30 years of trickle down economics? Tax and regulatory policies that favor the rich. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class is sliding downhill.
Those who don’t learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
The begining of the end of this country? Simple. Reagan.
You, and others, are purposely taking Obama’s statement out of context. He stated that no one does it alone–because no matter how hard working, no matter how dedicated, no matter how creative, without the infrastructure and without workers and without CUSTOMERS no one in this country can rise.
Explain to me how you can make money on an idea if you can’t get an investment, you can’t get skilled workers, you can’t get your product to market, and if no one has money to buy it.
Sorry–it is a bit more complicated that the 2 second Fox news sound bite.
Stacy–one other thing–
You might want to consider the preamble of the constitution of the US:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
We..union..common defence…general
welfare…ourselves..our prosperity.
I guess you and the “Fox Friends” would argue that language is to the left of the Communist Manifesto.
Stacy,
I’m not sure what Marxism has to do with your Husband’s life story, or Obama or Castro. If you are a Baby Boomer, or born anytime after, you have lived a life of entitlements that weren’t originally meant for you.
I am thankful that your Husband was able to get free and build a new life.
Thanks Stacy, Howard and Rick. I have more thoughts on free thinking and free will but I can’t seem to be able to put it into word form that doesn’t take up vast amounts of time and thinking energy and or sounding like a total jerk. I’m sure this won’t be your last post on the subject maybe by then I can condense my query.
Right now however all my computing powers are going to why timing gears and cam lobes failing like crazy causing a great wailing and gnashing of landscaper teeth. :\
mjeck, Marxism has everything to do with it. Totalitarian is a more proper word I think concerning our current state of affairs.
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/03/why-must-the-left-be-totalitarian.html
You can kiss “free thinking” and “free will” goodbye if this trend continues
now back to my cams and gears and things that make other things go
Andrew,
I need to invoke Godwin’s Law on that link.
I would say the U.S. is dealing with a Plutocracy, more than totalitarianism.
I would recommend you clear your mind, and actually read Karl Marx; then Atlas Shrugged; then the history of Yugoslavia; then the history of U.S. austerity, the railroad monopoly and unions; then ask which is more important: Individuals or groups? Capital or Labor?
From the citation:
“. Is the Left totalitarian? The answer to this depends on what is meant by ‘totalitarian.’ The word is derived from the Italian totalitario, meaning complete or absolute. The original connection is with Benito Mussolini and Italian fascism. Mussolini referred to his regime as lo stato totalitario, the totalitarian state. But the term ‘totalitarian’ came also to be applied to Hitler’s National Socialism and to Communism.”
So two out of three examples are fascists (hard right) yet he is implying only the LEFT is totalitarian.
“When I say that the Left is totalitarian, I mean that it is a political movement that moves us away from individual liberty…” Yet it was the Bush Administration that presided over the greatest restriction to personal liberty in the history of this country–the so-called “Patriot” act.
“…the unregulated pluralism of civil society….” The republican controlled government of the state of Tennnessee is attempting to outlaw Muslims from being in office.
“But must the Left be totalitarian? Well, what does the Left stand for, and against?
A. It is against religion as against an opiate that promises ‘pie in the sky’ when ‘pie in the future’ is attainable, they falsely maintain, by collective human effort orchestrated by a vanguard that sets itself apart from, and above, the masses”
First of all–the left is much more plural than the right. To suggest that “the left” is unified it to deny the existance of, for example, blue dog democrats.
Second–while communism was anti-organized religion there is no unified progressive, liberal, democratic, or other leftist movement that “is against religion.” Are their fringe groups? Of course. To suggest that they represnt the whole is to suggest that Fred Phelps represents all Christians (still waiting Stacy).
“The Left is against free enterprise and private property, which are the foundations of individual liberty.” No–what the left is against is unbridled capitalism, which in the past brought you slavery, child labor, and factories conditions that resulted in 146 garment workers died because the factory owner blocked the exit for fear of people stealing.
We had a time period in this country when industry self regulated. We had the near extinction of the bald eagle, children’s pajamas that caught on fire, and RIVERS that caught on fire. And if you think that Massey Energy wouldn’t put children down mines if they could get away with it you’re deluding yourself.
“The Left is against the family as the fundamental building-block of society” Of course, there is no proof of this statement. I could claim that the right wants to bring back slavery. Doesn’t make it true.
“The Left is for uniform indoctrination of the population. E.g., it opposes school vouchers and home schooling.” Why is it that every time we hear someone state so-and-so isn’t a “real” American it comes from the right? Objectively–the right believes there is only one way to be a “real” American. And that is the definition of uniform indoctrination. As for school vouchers–I’d rather see ALL students get a good education, not just the one who go to magnet schools.
“The Left is for central planning ‘from the top’ by an elite that seeks to equalize by, among other things, redistributing wealth via the tax code.” Of course–this is EXACTLY what the right has been doing since Reagan. The tax code and regulation has been redistributing wealth to fewer and fewer Americans. And now, thanks to citizen’s united, those few will get to purchase elections.
Finally, “Roughly, ‘totalitarian’ characterizes those systems of political organization in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and aims to regulate every aspect of public and private life.”
Isn’t that exactly what the Catholic Church strived to do for centuries during the middle ages? Isn’t that what the Bishops are calling for now–a church that has no limits on authority and aims to regulate every aspect of public and private life? What we can learn in school, who we can love, what a woman does with her own body?
Andrew–honestly–I’d try and be a bit more selective and critical in my reading if I were you.
mjeck,
I feel the need to invoke “Know Thyself” because I actually have read Karl Marx and Atlas Shrugged and I don’t give a flipping poop about the history of Yugoslavia. As far as I’m concerned the only good thing to come out of that place were Yugo’s, Kalashnikov licensed reproductions and cheap Cold War ammo bought at gun shows. The latter used to decimate the former after we blew their engines up drag racing them!
Ok I might say you have a good point on a Plutocracy. I’m about half way through “The Creature From Jekyll Island” the creators of the Federal Reserve Act certainly fit that bill. Also, given the current state of our economy and our polarized nature I might agree with you on that. I still say Totalitarian though, because the Democrat Party(certainly not all democrats though) seeks to destroy what is good and wholesome and silence what it can’t destroy and offends it. Remember, it was the Democrat Party that championed Jim Crow and segregation not the Republicans.
All groups consist of individuals, if those individuals needs and desires are not met your group may find a big road rash on its face
As far as Labor vs. Capital…
Well I’m out of work, I’m out of hope
What should be of thee I spoke
Good times for the undeserved
And hard times for the ones who work
Poor man, rich man, blind man, dead man
Hoped for more than they had all planned
Just then they suffered a serious blow
As the real world cuts the line you hold
Nobody said it would be fair
They warned you before you went out there
There’s always a chance to get restarted
To a new world, new life, scarred but smarter
Is it right to wish the poor man rich?
Is it right to wish the rich man poor?
I hope all that’s well is well ends fair
Wished thy neighbors life to despair
Being so mad that I stop crying
No payoff for all my trying
To do it right, to never fail
Wishing for some fairy tale
Nobody said it would be fair
They warned you before you went out there
There’s always a chance to get restarted
To a new world, new life, scarred but smarter
Well the way my life it turns all around
Jobs and things to do that I’ve found
I think how foolish I must have looked
To think I could be down for good
Nobody said it would be fair
But in the end I think it is.
Karma, justice, whatever you call it.
It’s really there just keep looking for it
Nobody said it would be fair
But in the end I think it is.
Karma, justice, whatever you call it.
It’s really there just keep looking for it
Nobody said it would be fair
They warned you before you went out there
There’s always a chance to get restarted
To a new world, new life, scarred but smarter
Scarred But Smarter
By Drivin N Cryin
Some suggested reading for you. Clear your brain out go buy a Haynes shop manual for what ever type and year vehicle you drive and copy of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and get busy.
cminca,
I firmly believe that Totalitarianism absolutely exists on the Right in the form a Theocracy, as scary a monster as any monster the left can thorw at us! I am very aware of that especially this particular Election Year.
Andrew,
If you’re suggesting that I forget all about this political nonsense and go read a book about Zen and do an honest days work with my hands, I’m with you there.
Andrew:
Man could I use you right along about now, trying to buy a car for my youngest and I know where to put the gas……..
mjeck,
Exactly! Though the book isn’t so much about Zen or motorcycle maintenance as it is about a schizophrenic professor of philosophy and road trip. Read the book then disassemble your lawn mower and put it all back together and maybe you will see the light or the Buddha if you will.
Rick,
whatever you end up buying anything with over 100,000 miles make DANG SURE that the timing belt or chain has been recently changed. And try to use ethanol-free fuel at all cost if you can find it.
My how this topic has strayed
Many thanks, Andrew.
As for ethanol free fuel, I am afraid this is the People’s Republic of California we are talking about here……
By gosh there might not be any corn to feed the starving this winter but there *will be plenty in the gas*.
Progressivism in all its glory.
Comment
“I firmly believe that Totalitarianism absolutely exists on the Right in the form a Theocracy,”
I have been telling people lately that I can see more clearly that we are moving closer to being Totalitarian society globally that is simultaneously imposing itself nationally. Not necessarily via democratic principles and an informed electorate.
God created a Theocracy when he created everything, I suppose we could describe this in terms of government control. If you are able to see this, then you can see the detrimental effects when violating his commandments and the long term effect of rejecting Him. On modern earthly governance, the Catholic held principles of subsidiarity, absolute truth and free will, would moderate the tendency of governors to personalize their granted powers. Of course adopting these principles would overcome our present manic rush backwards to master and slave government.
But what about……..
“God created a Theocracy when he created everything,”
All evidence to the contrary. If God had created a Theocracy ALL mankind would have been worshiping the same God in the same way.
“…subsidiarity, absolute truth and free will, would moderate the tendency of governors to personalize their granted powers.” Except, of course, for those “governors” of the church. Are you suggesting we return to the world of the Borgia and Medici popes? Thank you, no. (Of course–we don’t have to go back that far. The sex scandals themselves prove the cc isn’t governing itself according to any kind of moral code.)
“Of course adopting these principles would overcome our present manic rush backwards to master and slave government.” I’m assuming you’re referring to the theory of trickle down economics?
“If God had created a Theocracy ALL mankind would have been worshiping the same God in the same way.”
To continue using this temporal description of creation, all persons are subject to the same rules. How you worship or don’t depends on the choices you make.
The rest of what you retorted is merely sarcasm.
Yes, progressivism stops where natural law begins.
So does libertarianism.
Obviously the “mainstream” Republocrat worldview has long since been acquired as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the usurers.
Another snide remark while dodging the issue. Quite a pattern.
The decline of the Catholic Church must be that Natural Law kicking in.
Is there a third option, other than eliminating the Totalitarian “Leftist, Atheist” Agenda, by enforcing a Catholic Totalitarian Theocracy? Is it not enough to worship freely and tax-free? It’s almost as if this “God” had no intention of humans actually living together.
What decline?
Start with these:
http://blog.adw.org/2011/08/number-of-converts-to-catholicism-continuing-to-decline-you-know-what-to-do/
It’s “the largest institutional crisis in centuries, possibly in church history,” says the National Catholic Reporter. Worldwide, the Roman Catholic Church now has 1.1 billion members, compared with 1.5 billion Muslims and 593 million Protestants. In the U.S., all the major denominations have seen their numbers decline in recent years, but the Catholic Church has taken the biggest hit. Since the 1960s, four American-born Catholics have left the church for every one who has converted, according to a 2009 Pew study.
http://theweek.com/article/index/202388/catholics-in-crisis
fewer priests:
http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/6532/In-Focus-Facing-a-future-with-fewer-Catholic-prie.aspx
Mjeck, you’re the one that said there is no freedom, remember?
Stacy,
You are stuck on this planet, in a human body, just like me. You haven’t seen heaven, you HOPE for heaven. You are controlled by parts of your brain, such as your Amygdala, which controls emotions; your Hippocampus, which controls memory. Remove either of these, and we’ll see how much “freedom” you have in your life.
I’m still waiting on that well reasoned reply on how we do have freedom. If you parrot everything you’re told from the Catholic Church and Fox News, are you sure you’re even alive?
” enforcing a Catholic Totalitarian Theocracy”
You misunderstand me. What I am proposing is adopting the three beliefs that I stated.
“The decline of the Catholic Church”
You have got to think BIGGER. The Church thinks on a cosmic level, not an insular one.
Howard,
What is the bigger picture?
mjeck,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Membership_statistics
Howard,
I was speaking more on actual influence on society. And, I’m wondering how those statistics correlate to actual population growth.
Mjeck:
Those statistics are completely adequate to show one thing with complete confidence.
If the Church should unite, on any given issue, at any given time, in the United States of America, then it will be a very good thing indeed, since there is no question that She would be able, in such a case, to support the natural law over and against the mass-murdering, child slaughtering, marriage destroying, insanity of the nihil.
Rick,
So, Might is Right?
How eloquent. I guess that is Natural Law.
Well, Mjeck, it is actually “democracy”, a form of government which we both apparently have noticed to be highly problematic at times
But since we all have to play by the rules (it’s that or bullets, and I am certain you grasp that in that instance might exactly *does* make, if not right, then certainly the winner)…..
I remain highly encouraged by the Church holding her own globally through perhaps the worst and most outrageous dereliction of her shepherds in history.
The tide is well and truly turning now.
We will soon be under direct persecution, and as Hillare Belloc so clearly foresaw, “when persecution comes, then it will be morning”.
Mjeck, there is a sentence regarding pop growth in the link. I am reluctant to pursue a religious discussion using stats. My only intension was to show in a very real way that the Church is not in decline as we would commonly understand you. As to it’s effect on society, that would probably take a book from a very knowledgeable sociologist to analyze this for each country. I think it is true to say that in the U.S. Catholics have never voted as a block.
I could not say it better than “The Victory of Reason”, by Rodney Stark Ph.D., Social Science Prof at Baylor.
“Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth-a world truly living in “dark ages.”
The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a “secular” society-there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries. Even so, many apostles of modernization assume that, given the existing Western example, similar progress can be achieved today not only without Christianity but even without freedom or capitalism-that globalization will fully spread scientific, technical, and commercial knowledge without any need to re-create the social or cultural conditions that first produced it.”
Rodney Starks?
You trot out a religious sociologist working at a Christian university and cite him like he is unbiased?
Honestly?
“Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls”
Except that printing existed in Asia before Guttenberg and it is reasonable to believe that the invention would have been brought back to Venice via the commercial trade going on with the Orient.
”
Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800:
Except, of course, that the CC WASN’T committed to reason, progress, or moral equality.
“A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists”
Except, of course, that science began in pagan Egypt and Greece well before Christianity.
I’m not even going to bother finishing.
Honestly–you cite this kind of clap-trap?
I site him because I agree as I said. Bias and poor attempts at sarcasm I expect from you not reading comprehension.
Howard,
Just because you, or a lot of people, agree with him doesn’t make it true.
A lot of people (I wasn’t one of them) believed in WMD in Iraq. Didn’t make it true.
“Just because you, or a lot of people, agree with him doesn’t make it true.”
cminca, my determination of truth is not by taking a vote, that would make me loyal politico.
Just so we all understand that your comments are based on your perception of a “truth” not actual facts.
Or what Stephen Colbert likes to call “truthiness”.
Merriam-Webster’s #1 Word of the Year for 2006:
1. truthiness (noun)
1 : “truth that comes from the gut, not books” (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report,” October 2005)
2 : “the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true” (American Dialect Society, January 2006)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm
“Just so we all understand that your comments are based on your perception of a “truth” not actual facts.”
So YOU will understand, it is a foolish game to guess at how a person concludes. Less of a fool would ask.
Actually Howard–a fool only pays attention to what a person SAYS and doesn’t look past it to what a person DOES.
For example–how the CC talks about the loss of morality while, for decades at least, tacitly condoning pedophilia.
Personally–every time you can’t respond with a meaningful arguement you either suspend the conversation or try and strike back with a snide comment. As Alan64 so clearly pointed out.
So your use of the pejorative “fool” only reinforces my understanding that you don’t have a legitmate defense of your position.
Cimnca, your game is one of distraction. Again you fail to comprehend and try to switch the points to another track when derailment fails.
This repartee has been interesting but unproductive of my time.
So challenging a source you cited is a “game of distraction”?
Howard,
Somewhere, floating around in a box of old news paper clippings and other stuff that my grand father carries around with him, was an article concerning a law passed or to be passed mandating that all citizens of the State of Georgia would be required to attend church every Sunday. Non-compliance would result in imprisonment and/or fines.That was in the early 1900′s. Needless to say but I’ll say anyway, it didn’t last long if ever. I guess it became real clear real fast that not every body was a Baptist.
As Murphy and his stupid Law would have it I can’t find the clipping or the box or the law in question on the ol’ google machine I’m totally pulling this out of my somewhat faulty memory.
Andrew, I accept you memory of it. What is your point?
I believe….now I know this might be a bit of a stretch but hear me out here……..I believe such a law might, just maybe- have been unconstitutional?
Now such a law passed by a certain group, involving no penalty beyond excommunication or some similar ecclesial discipline, would simply have (as Andrew suggests) put them out of business.
There would still have been 19,999 (or 29,999) other options available.
It is, by the way, certainly true that any Catholic who willfully fails to assist at Sunday Mass is guilty of mortal sin, a direct violation of the Third Commandment.
Wonder how many Catholics know this, these days………
Howard,
Well, my point is this; at the time the article was written the theory of evolution, particle physics (were not just explaining the world but the universe), industrialization, mechanization, assembly lines, internal combustion, low and high air pressure were hurtling people through the air at speed of ridiculousness, communication in the form electrical currents were making America a very small place to be. But you probably already knew all of that
The South however was not exactly an intellectual bastion so to speak of and someone, in the General Assembly of Georgia I suppose decided that they and some others weren’t fans of the Theory Evolution and enacted at the least a bill or at the most a short lived law. It may have been spurred by the court case of Scopes v. The State of Tennessee. Like I said before, I am dredging this up from my somewhat faulty memory.
Anyway, moving right along…. Some people with money and political power(mjecks Plutocrats if you will) decided that they knew best for everyone in the State of Georgia and assuming that everyone in the State of Georgia had a “religious prefrence” (nd now that I think of it) declared that everyone should be in their “houses of worship” on the days that are proper to whatever religion you belong to. Jews were starting to thrive in Atlanta neighborhoods at that time as well and Atlanta as well as some of the South in general were starting to recooperate somewhat from the Civil War.
I don’t think that the writers of the bill thought of it as being an out-right theocracy. At best(I believe) they were left wanting the remainants of an aristocrcy and trying to preserve a way of life that was dear to them and the Modernization of America, the way it was going (with a fair amout of German and English influence) just wasn’t in the line-up. But they were willing to go as far as use the firepower of the “policestate” to enforce their views on religion which were being challenged with fines and imprisonment. With some intentional wording a state could thereby skirt the bounderies of the Constitution and do what they please and start to filter out what displeases it ASAP. Assuming that they argued successfully and got what they wanted it would be a matter of time before Jews, Catholics, Jehovas Wittnesses (banging down thier doors every Saturday morning), “free thinkers” like Samuel Clemins for example were out of the picture, the ground work of a totalitarian regiem would soon be under way and none would be the wiser except for the best, the brightest and the skeptical. For everyone else, it would be life as usual.
I probably left a lot out of my argument but I hope that gives you some idea of my point I was trying to make. I admit to being a fairly poor student of philosophy and theology.
Since I can’t find the actual newspaper article nor can I google out any info on the matter, any info that disproves me won’t be argued against until I hold the article in my hand.
On a more interesting note, in the same box along with the afore mentioned article was another article concerning the bonified shootem-up Hatfield and McCoy type of blood fued between distant, dead and irrelavant members of my family and another family for reasons known only to God.
Rick,
Since you seem like a science minded fellow, find an oil company that sells “offroad” gasoline and buy some and put it to the test. It should be slightly more expensive than premium depending on where yuo live and around 90-92 octane which burns cooler than lower octane fuels. the lower the combustion temp the cooler the engine runs, the cooler the engine runs the more efficiently the engine burns fuel. Follow what I’m saying?
Now add 10%-15% ethanol for “ecological and economical puposes” you loose up to 20% power in the fuel burn therefore your foot is up to 20% more in the throttle body therefore you burn more fuel to make up for the power loss in combustion.
Ethanol is alcohol and alcohol burns hotter than the go go juice you would normally put in your car but that shouldn’t be much a problem for modern water cooled engines unless you drive an old air cooled VW. If that’s the case, don’t stop for long lest your engine over heats. the big problem with ethanol is like all alcohol it absorbs water and over time and goops up (technical jargan) everything it comes in contact with.
Thanks for the insight, Andrew, I really appreciate it!
I want to make a comment on what you said to Howard.
As I was reading, it struck me that you apparently have no difficulty at all with the Plutocrats enforcing the teaching of evolution- a theory, after all, whose foundational premise (descent from common ancestor via random mutation and natural selection) has been experimentally falsified each and every time it has been attempted (google Dobzhansky species barrier).
Evolution is a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.
It is am worldview, not an experimentally demonstrated outcome.
Why, then are the Plutocrats to be given a pass for imposing their metaphysical worldview on the rest of us who don;t believe in it?
“Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory – natural selection – to explain the mechanism of evolution.”Evolution as Fact and Theory – Stephen Jay Gould
But to answer your final question Rick–in order to compete on a global stage we have to educate our children in actual science–not your faith based opinions.
Andrew, I think the fact of a bill like this even being considered is enough to hang your comments on.
Heaven forbid that anyone should propose a Theocracy for temporal existence. That would be exactly what we face now and have faced in history with the Muslim expansion into Europe that was beaten back at great cost to human life and of benefit to future anti-religious factions. Sharia law would mean replacing our system that is intended to protect persons as individuals, with a system that would also enforce compliance with Divine commandments that may only involve an outburst of thought during an argument, or a slip of a veil in public. As Christians we believe in free-thinking (this will make Stacy happy since it is on subject) and we should be committed to this proposition when making laws. Examples of overreaching can be given besides the one you gave. Law needs to be used sparingly and persons of faith and no faith need to be brought back to basics when going to far. Unless we reverse to trend of denying there is such a thing as absolute truth, we are destined to be the play things of the most manipulative among us. Pick you side and hope you will be among the winners and not finding out that you are relegated to the group that has been used, when that side predominates.
“for reasons known only to God.”
I thought you were agnostic?
Andrew by the way, when are you Southerners going to get that hodge-podge of drinking laws straightened out.
Rick,
You are right, it’s way unconstitutional. I’m sure that the 1st Amendment saw to that.
As for forced teaching evolution… I don’t think any one person should “forced” to do anything against their wishes or will. within reason of course there are certainly plenty of cases where people should be forced for some reason or another. But that’s a whole new argument and can of worms to be opened.
I personally don’t think evolution, creationism or any hot button issues should be taught at basic school levels. Those are strictly for advanced schools and universities and colleges any of which should be taken as electives.
Howard,
I am well aware of the encroachment of Sharia Law into European society. My wife is from Birmingham England. We went back a few months ago, I was in shock at how much of England really isn’t England anymore.
I see your point on theocracy. I don’t like the idea of it at all. Then again I don’t like authority of any kind very much even though it’s needed.
More on topic of free thinking. Dr. Strenger is full of B.S. I wonder if he would give now infamous James Holmes a hug and try the convince the rest of us that he was programmed to kill and had no choice but to follow through with the executions?
“Andrew by the way, when are you Southerners going to get that hodge-podge of drinking laws straightened out.”
The most important Question
We can now buy alcohol on Sundays in Georgia, but it is from city to city and it kind of depends on how loud the bible thumps as to whether it’s put on the ballot to be voted for. For example where I live it can’t be bought but 5 miles down the road it can. I think however it will be on the ballot for us in the general election this year. Back in the 80′s when it was brought up before, petitions were put out to be signed. After they were collected and counted preachers descended on the capitol got lots of copies of the petitions and proceeded to find members of the congregations that signed and started calling them out first thing Sunday mornings. Somewhat of a throw back to a totalitarian theocracy.
I respectfully bow out of the discussion for now and will now go stick my head under the hood of the 280Z I am restoring for the rest of the week end.
Sim Sala Bim my friends
Almost forgot…
Howard, yes I am agnostic. No, I don’t believe in God or gods but I don’t discount the real possibility that there is a Fundamental Truth or Law governs the universe. I just don’t know what it is or why it is or any of those quirky little questions.
Y’all have a good weekend
Then I guess your reference “…to God” and not “…to the possible God” was a Freudian slip.
On a further note… Dr Strenger has applied way to much science to the old adage; the apple does not fall far from the tree.